Parental Support: Tax and Benefit Policies

Lord Northbourne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will introduce tax and benefit policies which will support parents who make a long term commitment to work together in partnership to care for and support their children.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting all children through tax and benefit policies. Households with children will be on average £850 a year better off because of measures introduced in this Parliament.
	Our ambition is to halve child poverty by the end of the decade on the way to abolishing it within 20 years. As a result of this Government's policies, a single earner family with two children, earning £12,500, will be £2,600 a year better off.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that there are in this country today 1.7 million lone parent families headed by mothers and 200,000 lone parent families headed by fathers? Does he further agree that last year the Exchequer spent £9.9 billion to support lone parent families? Has not the time come for the Exchequer to spend rather more money on encouraging young men to take seriously their responsibilities towards their children and their children's mothers?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure whether that is a question about taxation policy or about moral exhortation. As a point of fact on taxation policy, because of individual taxation a single-earner couple pays more than a two-earner couple. Therefore, there is some incentive for couples to have two earners. I do not think that our taxation policy can be said to be driving anyone into single parenthood. Surely the opposite is the case.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a creche is not the answer for all children, particularly when they have to be taken to and from school? Is it not time that he put to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suggestion that we have been pushing for many years of a tax allowance for parents who have to employ someone for child help and care?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by that question. Under the working families tax credit--now claimed by more than 1 million families--100,000 families are claiming childcare benefit. That is more than double the number of those who were claiming the family credit disregard in the past. Taking the matter as a wider issue than the creches to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, refers, I should have thought that the Government are doing a good deal.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree with my right honourable friend Charles Kennedy that family life and the way we raise our children are private matters? Does he also agree that while it is the proper object of government policy to help parents do what they choose, whether it is as full-time carers or at work, it is not a proper object of government policy to announce--as the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did on Radio Scotland yesterday--that the Government intend as an act of policy to change the proportion of those choices? That is beyond the Government's competence and, in the literal sense of the word, ultra vires. If he does not agree with my right honourable friend, perhaps he will say why he does not.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will have noted my reluctance to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, into the sphere of moral exhortation. I agree that it is for people to decide how they live their lives. On the other hand, it is a proper object of government policy to see that children are taken out of poverty. The actions which I have described, the taxation policies, the encouragement of parents of children to work and benefit substantially from that, are proper objects of government policy.

Baroness Young: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the Answer which he gave to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred only to supporting children and not to parents who make a long-term commitment? Does he not also agree that this is not a question of moral exhortation when in the Government's White Paper on the family the point was made that families with both a mother and a father bringing up children provide the best circumstances for children to grow up in?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that possibly both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I are guilty of over-simplifying the matter. When I talk about supporting children, she talks about supporting parents. Clearly, if we support families with children, we are supporting both the families and the children.

Baroness Strange: My Lords--

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords--

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think the feeling of the House is that we should hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Strange.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should first declare an interest. My husband and I have been happily married for a considerable number of years. We have brought up six children. Four of those children are already married and have children of their own. They are dedicating their lives to bringing up those children. I was talking to a lady on the bus this morning about children and education. She said, "If you do not have love in your heart, then you cannot achieve anything".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this gives me the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on her happy family life and on her choice of the people she talks to on buses!

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the declaration of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been incorporated into our law, is the right and proper instrument within which taxation or other policies should be framed? Does he also agree that, when the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights starts to impact on British legislation, the convention should take priority?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not the position of Her Majesty's Government that the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights will impact on British legislation.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister said a few moments ago that the Government believe in supporting children with their tax and benefits policies. But is the noble Lord aware that in the case of a single mother the present tangled web of tapers and disregards in the tax and benefits system means that her earnings will actually fall if she works for 27 hours a week as opposed to 26 hours a week? Do the Government think that that is supporting children through their tax policies?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are still anomalies in our taxation policies as regards children. We acknowledge that, which is why we have undertaken a fundamental review with results that will not become fully implemented until 2003. Nevertheless, in the shorter term the children's tax credit, which is to be introduced in April 2001, will be much better targeted than the old married couple's allowance. It will go only to families with children as it will be tapered away from higher rate taxpayers, which I assume is what the noble Lord is referring to, and therefore will be targeted more closely at people on low and middle incomes, and it will be substantially more generous than the married couple's allowance, with up to £442 compared with £197 for the married couple's allowance.

Euro Intervention

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to participate in further operations in support of the euro.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, in view of the market sensitivity of this issue, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that uninformative reply. Does he agree that the most recent intervention in favour of the euro in September was not an unqualified success as the euro now stands somewhat below the rate at which it stood before the intervention? Does he further agree that the problems of the euro have to do with the fundamental difficulties of a euro-zone economy, as people do not want to invest in the euro? Does he accept that intervening is about as much good as giving a patient an aspirin when what he needs is a heart transplant?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should be so surprised at my first Answer. He did not seriously think that I would announce from this Dispatch Box that at some time in the near future we would embark on a support intervention for the euro or indeed for any other currency. I have made it clear from the very beginning that intervention is applicable only in very rare circumstances. As to whether the intervention in September was a success, I think it is difficult to say. There was a stabilisation of the euro for some time after the intervention took place. I do not think that anyone could make a judgment as to whether the subsequent decline in the value of the euro was greater or less as a result of the intervention.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, perhaps I may--

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware--

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the feeling seems to be that we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shore.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the wisdom and common sense of his reply. Will he please communicate to the Governor of the European Central Bank similar advice to that which he has given in responding to that question today? If he did, would there not be just a chance that the euro might begin to stabilise?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that unusual compliment from my noble friend Lord Shore. I am not sure quite what advice he is asking that I should give to the Governor of the European Central Bank, particularly as we are not among his subjects, so to speak. My noble friend will know, as the House will know, that the intervention which took place in September was not the initiative of the European Central Bank but of G7, including the Bank of Japan and the Federal Reserve Bank.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real lesson of the intervention is that the UK is now a bit player in world monetary affairs, that the decisions on intervention in support of the euro were in essence taken by the US, the Japanese and the EU, and that the Bank of England tagged along meekly behind, after the real discussions had taken place and the real decisions had been taken? Is that not the real lesson of being outside the euro-zone?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly more privy to the internal discussions within G7 than I am. It is a matter of fact that our participation in the intervention in September was relatively small in comparison with that of other countries, but I cannot accept any of the noble Lord's further speculation.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how we on these Benches would have been most fearful for the continuation of his genial, authoritative and reassuring presence on the Front Bench if he had uncharacteristically confounded the House by seeking to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on the substance of his Question?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, expected an answer to his Question in the terms in which it was couched. We all recognise that euro-sceptics around the House seek a variety of opportunities to discuss their antagonism or support for the euro. The House is none the poorer for that.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, if the Minister does not want to deal directly with my noble friend's Question, perhaps I may ask him to cast back his mind to 9th October, which was the day that he performed his extraordinary volte-face on the subject of intervention in the foreign exchange markets to support the euro. I remind him of what he said. He justified the 180 degree U-turn in the Government's position by saying:
	"Circumstances change and we change with them; if we did not we would be very foolish".--[Official Report, 9/10/00; col. 4.]
	Does the Minister agree that that kind of unreliability and change of mind is what in the end causes the public to lose faith in politicians of all kinds?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recall precisely what I said on 9th October. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked me whether I still agreed with what I had said in March. I do not usually refer to what I have said in the past, but I shall repeat my words; namely, that,
	"attempts to intervene are unlikely to have the desired effect in most cases".--[Official Report, 28/3/00; col. 729.]
	That was true in March, it was true on 9th October and it remains true today, 31st October.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the comment made during evidence recently given to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee by Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England? He stated that:
	"The integration of European capital markets would be an unqualified benefit".
	Does the Minister also agree that long-term interest rates in Europe and in the United States are now virtually the same?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not familiar with the comment made by Sir Eddie George to the House of Lords Select Committee. It sounds sensible, but I should need to read it in context to know whether it could possibly be supported as government policy.

The North East: Economic Prospects

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What further steps they are taking to improve the economy of the north-east of England.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important that the North East, along with other regions, should benefit from economic growth and prosperity. This Government have and will continue to provide new opportunities for a regionally focused approach to tackling these problems. In July, the Chancellor announced an additional £500 million for regional development agencies by 2003-04. One NorthEast will receive its full share of this extra money. That is good news for the region.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. I acknowledge that the Government are doing a great deal for the North East, but it is a fact that unemployment in the region remains the highest of any region in the United Kingdom--worse now than in Northern Ireland. My noble friend referred to RDA budgets. Can he say, first, how the budget for One NorthEast compares with the budgets for other regional development agencies? Secondly, are levels of unemployment considered to be among the most important criteria when budgets and grants are determined?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the share of the total RDA budget depends to some extent on inherited programmes. Decisions as regards the allocation of the additional moneys to which I referred have yet to be made in final detail. However, I can assure my noble friend that One NorthEast will receive an allocation that is appropriate to meet local economic problems, including the locally higher rate of unemployment.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that last week's successful win of an MoD contract by the famous yard, Swan Hunter, has given an enormous boost to the morale of the people of the North East. Some 2,000 new jobs are to be created for a minimum of five years. However, is the noble Lord aware of the strategy put forward by One NorthEast to secure a European grant of £130 million to aid small and medium-sized businesses? Is he further aware that Commissioner Monti has held up this grant on a legal point for some 18 months? Does the noble Lord agree that, if this long delay could be brought to an end, the grant would be a further great aid to the region?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the European grant, discussions on the delivery of those moneys have been held between One NorthEast, officials from the relevant government departments in the North East and representatives of the Commission. I believe that any difficulties will shortly be resolved and that the grant will be rightly allocated to the North East. I join the noble Lord in underlining the importance of the award by the Ministry of Defence of the two ALSL contracts to the Swan Hunter shipyard. Those contracts will certainly provide substantial additional employment opportunities in the region. Furthermore, the US company Atmel has recently decided to take over the former Siemens plant on Tyneside, and a further 1,000 jobs are being created at Orange on North Tyneside. Substantial movements have been made by employers, who recognise the attractiveness of the workforce in Tyneside. Although rates of unemployment are still relatively high, employment figures are improving and unemployment is starting to fall.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lord, does the Minister agree that the University of Teesside is a very successful institution?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. I am not entirely sure what lies behind the intervention of the noble Baroness, but I am happy to confirm that not only is the University of Teesside extremely successful. It has also greatly improved its facilities in recent years.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, along with the high rates of unemployment prevalent in the North East, it is also true to say that the economy of the region is extremely fragile? One reason is that many of the new jobs being created are technically quite vulnerable to change. I am thinking in particular of the new call centres. Can my noble friend confirm that sufficient resources will be made available to the North East to enable people to be retrained in work for the changes which will undoubtedly occur in jobs over the next five to 10 years?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of complex issues. It is certainly the Government's intention, as it will be for the regional development agency, One NorthEast, and other agencies, to ensure that adequate training is provided. Such training and retraining will be provided both for those in work and those out of work in recognition of the fact that training is an extremely important element of the skills of the local workforce. The North East has seen a substantial shift of employment opportunities into the service sector, including new jobs in call centres. Although such developments may be regarded as fragile, they nevertheless form an important part of the service economy. Indeed, the North East has been particularly successful in maintaining its share of such work. As technology and communications develop, no doubt skills will need to be built on and further developed. However, I underline a point that I made earlier; namely, that substantial investment is being made in manufacturing industry. The North East continues to be a major manufacturing region.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, despite the good news on employment prospects given by the noble Lord, is it not a fact that when the Government took office in 1997 unemployment in the North East was 2.6 per cent higher than the national average? Today it is 3.9 per cent higher. What will the Government do about that?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that the gap between the level of unemployment in the North East and that in the rest of the United Kingdom has worsened over the past few years, although I believe that the latest figures will show that the gap has now shrunk a little. I have outlined the efforts being made by the local RDA and the Government to reverse that trend. The Government regard it as a priority to try to close the gap so that relative prosperity in the North East may be assured.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a helpful measure which could be taken by the Government as regards the North East would be to progressively implement their decision to introduce consolidated regional budgets covering all the relevant departments, and to do that with great speed and vigour? The North East needs all the help it can get. Such help would best be given through local decision taking.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important that moneys allocated for development in the North East should be consolidated and flexible as regards local decision taking. As to the local RDA budget, it is intended that a single budget will be drawn up to cover the RDA's entire current spending programmes. Work is under way to complete the work so that the new budgets will be in place by April 2002. The coming financial year will be regarded as a transitional year. After that, the RDA will have moved on to a single budget which will offer the kind of flexibility being sought by the noble Lord.

Deafblind People: Service Provision

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any proposals to deal with the identification, assessment and provision of one-to-one services for deafblind people as outlined in the Deafblind Persons Bill.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, following the Department of Health's deafblindness consultation, we intend to issue guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, saying that authorities should identify the deafblind people in their areas and should ensure that assessment (to include consideration of one-to-one support) and service provision are appropriate to people with dual sensory impairment.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the guidance to be issued under Section 7 will be legally binding on local authorities? If it is, can he further confirm that it will meet all the requirements provided for in my Deafblind Persons Bill? If those conditions are met, I shall immediately withdraw my Bill.
	While I thank my noble friend very warmly, is he aware that I am echoing the views of 23,000 deafblind people living in Britain, most of whom have been neglected and isolated for many years? In fact, almost half of them have received no support at all. Happily, however, this new government policy will put an end to that scandalous state of affairs. Will the Government monitor progress to ensure that local authorities no longer evade their responsibilities to deafblind people?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to my noble friend for his determination in this important area, and to other noble Lords who took part in the debate on his Bill.
	I can confirm that, although local authorities are not under an obligation to follow Section 7 guidance to the letter, they are required to follow the path charted by the Secretary of State; they are not free to deviate from the guidance unless there is good reason to do so. In any case, they are not free to follow a substantially different course. I can assure my noble friend that we shall monitor the implementation of the guidance.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if local authorities decide that they have not got the money, is this deemed "good reason", to use the Minister's words?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the provision of adequate and appropriate services to deafblind people should be seen as a core part of a local authority's responsibilities. We expect local authorities to ensure that they discharge those responsibilities.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister's announcement. Will he consider ring-fencing the money which is essential for the provision of these services?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. I do not consider that ring-fencing is appropriate. As I have already suggested, this is a core responsibility of local authorities. Often deafblind people are already in receipt of services, but sometimes those are inadequate. It may be a case of local authorities using their resources more efficiently rather than of needing extra resources. In any event, this should be seen in the context of the real growth in resources that the Government are giving to local authorities for expenditure on social service provision.

Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the limiting factors in the provision of services is that there are few appropriate training courses for people who want to work with deafblind people? Do I understand from his previous answers that he believes local authorities should make room for the funding of such courses from their core budgets?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to draw attention to issues in relation to training for deafblind services. My understanding is that training is available and is currently provided by a number of organisations, including the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People, Sense and Deafblind UK among others. But it is not mandatory and it is not a part of the standard social work training. As a result of the process of implementing the Section 7 guidance, I believe that local authorities will be in a better position to assess the needs of deafblind people in their areas. They will then be able to make a judgment as to whether they have the staff with the right training and qualifications to enable them to provide such services. Clearly, part of that will rest on a local authority's own expenditure decisions. But there may also be instances where, at a national level, we would need to consider whether any particular changes should be made in relation to the curricula of social work training to take account of specific deafblind needs.

Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that when the new guidance is brought into play it will take into account that there has been a considerable history of misdiagnosis in this area? For instance, people have been termed "learning disabled" when they have suffered from a dual sensory impairment. Will this be kept in mind and worked into the structure? If a person was to be diagnosed as having an intellectual impairment when, in reality, he was suffering from a sensory impairment, the amount of psychological damage to that person could be catastrophic.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. Certainly the Government's intention is that every effort will be made to ensure that diagnoses are made correctly. I am not sure whether this comes under the compass of the Section 7 guidance because that is aimed specifically at the duties of local authorities in providing services and support to deafblind people. But it is a substantive point which the National Health Service should take particularly into account.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but is my noble friend aware that, because there are only 23,000 deafblind people in Britain, paying for these services is peanuts in terms of local authority expenditure? It would be a shabby, shoddy excuse for local authorities to dodge their responsibilities on the grounds of cost.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have made it clear that we expect local authorities to implement with enthusiasm the guidance we will be issuing and to ensure that deafblind people receive a high quality of service and support. I do not believe that the resources question should be allowed to get in the way of local authorities providing what deafblind people have every right to expect.

Freedom of Information Bill

Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 3,
	Schedule 1,
	Clauses 4 to 17,
	Schedule 2,
	Clauses 18 to 54,
	Schedule 3,
	Clauses 55 to 60,
	Schedule 4,
	Clauses 61 to 66,
	Schedule 5,
	Clauses 67 to 72,
	Schedule 6,
	Clauses 73 to 75,
	Schedule 7,
	Clauses 76 to 85,
	Schedule 8,
	Clauses 86 and 87.--(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Report received.
	Clause 2 [Aims of the Service]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 10, at end insert--
	("( ) ensuring offenders' awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. In Committee, the Minister said:
	"It is no longer right to view the Probation Service as a social work organisation, as it has partly been seen in the past".--[Official Report, 2/10/00; col. 1142.].
	I agree with that comment. That is one of the reasons why, when I was in office as Minister with responsibility for the Probation Service, I brought to an end the social worker training qualification for probation officers and set in motion more appropriate training for the Probation Service.
	To make explicit that those in the Probation Service should ensure an offender's awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and on the public, neither narrows the work of the service--as was claimed in another place and repeated by the Minister--nor does it turn probation officers into social workers. How can it possibly turn them into social workers when one of their functions is to rehabilitate offenders and to reduce crime? Very often when offenders are brought face to face with the victims of their crimes, it has a powerful impact on many and has the effect of turning their faces away from crime.
	In Clause 2(2) the aims of the service are described as,
	"(a) the protection of the public,
	(b) the reduction of re-offending".
	I would add to that "the rehabilitation of offenders".
	"Proper punishment" is set out as an aim in Clause 2. We and the Liberal Democrats agree that proper punishment is a function of the courts. Overseeing, supervising and managing the programmes meted out by the courts is the function of the Probation Service. I hope that the Minister will accept that making offenders aware of the impact of their behaviour on others is an essential part of rehabilitation and should be included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend. Those of your Lordships who, in one way or another, have had experience of dealing with criminals, must be aware that, when going to a crime, the criminal is thinking only of himself and his own interests. Criminals never seem to have the imagination, the upbringing or the ethical sense of wondering what effect their crimes will have upon other people. Now that we are progressing, I hope, in the rehabilitation of offenders and enlarging the responsibilities of the national probation service, I suggest, as did my noble friend Lady Blatch, that it is very important that we make criminals aware of the effect of their crimes upon their victims.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on this amendment. The matter was debated at some length in Committee. We are dealing with the aims of the service. One developing aspect of the criminal justice system is the extent to which we deal with restorative justice. The Home Office is interested in the subject and I have attended a number of its conferences organised by the Minister himself.
	Restorative justice effectively means ensuring an offender's awareness of the effect of the crime on the victims and on the public. I believe that it is a rightful aim to include in this clause. Crime will not be reduced unless there is a clear strategy for dealing with those who offend. It is therefore right to include the rehabilitation of offenders as an aim of the Probation Service.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support those who have spoken to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, sentencing and punishment will not achieve their aim unless they are directed at rehabilitating the offender so that he is less likely to re-offend. I realise that the words "the reduction of re-offending" are on the face of the Bill, but I cannot see the argument against including as one of the aims of the service the rehabilitation of offenders.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support both these amendments. The amendment before the House would improve the climate for restorative justice generally. The Government are well aware that that can take place on a semi-informal, community basis, which would be much more rapid in its effect than the normal procedure of going through the courts.
	As regards Amendment No. 2, it must stand out a mile that offending will not be reduced unless offenders have been rehabilitated. They need a place to live and a job of work to do: they need to relate to other people, particularly to their families.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I, too, support the amendments. Prisons have become places of containment. They are rather like conveyor belts: prisoners go in and come out all the time. It is important that rehabilitation is emphasised, especially in regard to young offenders; otherwise it could be forgotten.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a useful opening debate. I have listened to opinions from all sides of the House, and we had a similar debate in Committee. There is not much between any of us as regards what we expect of the Probation Service. It is more a matter of how that expectation is constructed and where it is placed in terms of the legislation and regulations.
	The aims of the service have been carefully devised to inform everything that the service does. We want to position the national probation service within the criminal justice system as a law enforcement agency--as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said--not as a social work organisation. We are entirely at one on that.
	We also want the new service to concentrate on those activities that reduce crime. It must have the purpose of crime reduction at its heart and its core. In many cases the way in which you reduce the likelihood of an offender re-offending is by assisting his rehabilitation. Again, we are at one. That is why rehabilitation is specified in Clause 1(1)(b) as an overarching purpose of the service. It is stated right at the beginning of the legislation; it is at the core of our argument. We do not believe that it needs to be re-stated as an aim of the service. To that extent, we are at one.
	Part of the rehabilitation process is designed to ensure that the offender is aware of the effects of the crime on victims and on the public. For that reason, the Government have begun to ensure that the interests of victims are placed at the centre of our concerns in tackling and undermining the impact of crime. That is why we have consulted widely this year--and our approach has received wide support--on the development of, for example, victim personal statements, so that the views of the victim can be taken into consideration when courts deliberate over matters relating to those who are found guilty of offences.
	But rehabilitation can go much wider than that, to include all kinds of social needs with which other agencies are better placed to deal. Adding specific aims such as these to the current list of aims--which has been devised to cover in broad terms everything that the service does--would deflect the focus of the service away from its primary role as a law enforcer.
	During the passage of the Bill we have spent a great deal of time debating the aims of the new Probation Service. I still believe that in the amendment the noble Baroness is confusing purposes with aims. Rehabilitation is already a purpose of the service, as I have pointed out. It would be a nonsense for the same thing to be both a purpose--having accepted the fact that it is a purpose--and an aim, given that the purposes are required to be pursued with regard to the aims.
	I have more sympathy with the noble Baroness's point about victims. Work in respect of victims is an important part of the criminal justice system and of the work of the Probation Service. We are already placing various requirements on the service in respect of this through Clause 66. We also propose to make regulations under Clause 1(3) to ensure that appropriate work not covered by Clause 66 is made a purpose. We shall consider whether we can also use these regulations to cover the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the impact of crime on victims. Our intention would be to include that in the regulations, where we believe it would be more appropriately located. Again, we should not confuse purposes with aims.
	I trust that having heard what I have said in regard to the many valuable points made in this short debate, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. For clarity, I repeat: I do not think that we should confuse aims and purposes. We have examined the position carefully with regard to victims. While we do not believe that this provision should be stated as an aim, because we believe that it is more a purpose, it is our intention to consider whether it can be included in regulations as set out under Clause 1(3) which contains the reference,
	"Regulations may extend the purposes".
	That is the area where we consider that we might regulate. Perhaps I may also remind the House that, under Clause 66, we are placing various requirements on the service with regard to the provisions of that clause, which most noble Lords will accept as being extremely important in the context of the Bill.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall need to read it carefully. I think I am grateful for what he said about the use of secondary legislation--although I would argue strongly that rehabilitation is a fundamental activity for the Probation Service and it is still my view that it should be on the face of the Bill.
	In replying, the noble Lord did not once use the word "functions". We were not talking about "aims". Clause 2 sets out the functions of the service and it is to those that I refer, not its overall aims and objectives.
	There is a further point that was not addressed by the noble Lord. Is he defending the idea that the main aim of the Probation Service is,
	"the proper punishment of offenders"?
	It is the courts that punish; the Probation Service oversees, manages and supervises the programmes that are set out in court. It seems to me wrong to set down the proper punishment of offenders as the service's main aim, although it is included in the clause that sets out its functions. Before I decide what to do about the amendment, perhaps the noble Lord would like to address that point.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have set out very clear and simple aims in Clause 2. Indeed, it talks about the "aims" of the service, which are then outlined; for example,
	"the protection of the public, the reduction of re-offending, [and] the proper punishment of offenders".
	Yes, the service does have a relationship with the proper punishment of offenders. It is all about administering that punishment in the community and, as people are released from custody, working closely with, and ensuring the proper punishment of, offenders. I take the various orders that are made as a form of punishment conducted in the community to be part of the punishment process. Yes, they are about rehabilitation and about the protection of the public. That is exactly where we are trying to go in reshaping and refocusing the Probation Service and making it more purposeful.
	I was under the impression that the noble Baroness shared that objective. Indeed, she should. I have heard her previously make the point that when she was a Minister she wanted to see the Probation Service much more like we wish to see it now that we are in government.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is nothing on the face of the Bill which says that offenders should be aware of the impact of their offences and their activities on victims. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 112.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 10, at end insert--
	("( ) the rehabilitation of offenders").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Local boards]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("probation").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not think that the Government can continue to argue that the boards should not be dignified with a proper name. The most appropriate name familiar to most people is "local probation boards", as suggested in my amendment. In Committee the Minister said that each board would have the word "probation" in its title. Therefore my amendment should be acceptable. The word "local" is included in the Bill. If the word "probation" is also to be included in the title of each board, why not take the logical step of putting on the face of the Bill the phrase,
	"For each area there shall be a board (referred to in this Act as a local probation board)"?
	That would be entirely consistent with the declaration made by the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to identify ourselves entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said. Names are important. These boards will have few enough powers and dignity; they are entitled to have a name that means something.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do not disagree with the name "local probation boards". However, we disagree that that needs to be on the face of the Bill. I think that, in practice, they are likely to be called local probation boards. However, we do not see the need to use the word "probation" in the formal legal text. For that reason I argue that the amendment is otiose and unnecessary. I invite the House to reject it.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if my amendment is unnecessary, why state that they shall be known as local boards? That seems absurd. They are to be called something in law; that is, local boards. The noble Lord says that, in practice, they are likely to be called local probation boards and does not suggest that it is wrong to call them that. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 147; Not-Contents, 114.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Schedule 1 [Local Boards]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 52, line 10, at end insert--
	("( ) The chief officer is to be appointed by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again I emphasise the importance of these amendments. The Minister appeared to misunderstand the arguments put to him in Committee. It is essential to have clear and effective line management. Responsibility, ownership and accountability at the point of operation in the service is fundamental.
	The relationship of the chief officer to other staff and to the board is also critical. For the employer of the chief officer to be the Secretary of State and the employers of all other staff to be the boards will create difficulties and possibly at times divided loyalties. For example, where does responsibility or, even worse, culpability, lie should something go wrong especially if the root cause of the problem is conflicting messages from the Secretary of State and the local board?
	It is clear that the Secretary of State is concerned about control. However, the Secretary of State will have the power to approve the appointment of the chief officer to each area. The Secretary of State can appoint and, if necessary in extremis, remove the board. The Secretary of State has control over 100 per cent of the funding. The Secretary of State sets overall aims and objectives for the service. The Secretary of State sets national standards and performance targets. The Secretary of State will receive advice and reports from the inspectorate. Therefore, the Secretary of State will lose nothing by allowing the board to appoint the chief officer. These arguments were well argued in Committee. Nothing that has been said by the Minister then, in letters--we are deeply appreciative of all letters sent by the Minister--or in debate has satisfied our concerns.
	I ask the Minister to agree to the amendments. They are essential for the proper delivery of the service. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we on these Benches concur strongly with what the noble Baroness said. The powers and responsibilities of what we can now call local probation boards under the Bill are extremely ill categorised. One is used to talking of power without responsibility. As the Bill is drafted, the boards will have responsibility and no power--an even worse state of affairs. At Second Reading, I called them "eunuch boards". I think that that is not an unfair or inaccurate way of describing the conjugation of powers and responsibilities provided for in the Bill.
	I hope not to detain the House for too long, but draw attention to Clause 5 in which the functions of the local board are set out. They are, first,
	"to make arrangements for ensuring that sufficient provision is made for the purposes mentioned in section 1".
	Clause 1(1) states that,
	"(a) courts ... be given assistance in determining the appropriate sentences to pass ... and
	(b) the supervision and rehabilitation of such persons".
	Those are two enormous and crucially important aspects of government and state policy. Those boards will have to ensure that sufficient provision is made for their role in giving effect to community orders, supervising persons released from prison on licence, and providing accommodation in approved premises. These are major matters of state criminal policy.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, enumerated, the powers by which the boards are supposed to undertake these heavy responsibilities are almost non-existent. At every turn the Secretary of State has retained the whip hand: over finance, policy, procedures, appointments where he has a monopoly, property and contracts. What is left for those boards to undertake of their own volition and power? Precious little.
	It may be asked: why bother about the appointment of the chief probation officer? We believe that this is a sine qua non for any cohesion, clarity or loyalty. One does not have to go to business school to know that a house divided against itself will not stand. One does not have to go to management consultants to know that a man cannot have two masters; and the chief probation officer certainly will. Will he look to the Home Secretary or to his or her board?
	The answer is obscure, except that we know that in the ultimate the appointment is made by the Secretary of State. I can see two common situations which will plague not only the board and the chair of the board but in particular the poor chief probation officer. One example is when the CPO is out of sympathy with the line agreed by the board on any matter relating to those duties. Perhaps he or she should then run off to the Home Secretary and say, "Mr Home Secretary, they are requiring me to do this. I do not think it is right. Will you please override them?" That will always be a temptation, but I suspect that it would simply sow doubt, confusion and unhappiness where there should be unity and effectiveness.
	Another example is when the board adopts a different line from Home Office policy on the delivery of its mighty duties. What is the CPO to do then? They know what their employment master plans or wants, but they also know what their local board is planning and what local circumstances may require.
	One does not have to go far back in history to know that some Home Secretaries have taken a very strong line that has not found sympathy with the existing committees. I suspect that many on the Government Benches were extremely happy that the previous Home Secretary could not order a chief probation officer to take certain actions in defiance of the wishes of the local board. For those and many other reasons, we strongly favour the amendment.
	Finally, there is no precedent. The relationship of chief constables with their committees is not as set down here. The committee appoints the chief constable. The same is true of health trusts or magistrates' courts committees. Not even the most draconian holding company would require the chief executive and director of one of its subsidiary operating boards to be appointed by head office rather than by the board. Of course, head office will have a say, but the appointment will be made by the board. To do otherwise is to diminish the standing of the board.
	I understand that the Government want a national service, but the amendment is not inconsistent with a national service. In fact, it makes the prospect of an effective national service more likely. Able people will not sit on the boards if they are stripped of all meaning. The amendment would restore a little power, authority and dignity to them.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have had a long association with the probation service. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said in his powerful speech, we shall vote for the amendment. The provisions in the Bill are another move towards the centralisation of power that is one of the least attractive qualities of some members of the present Administration. Of course there has been devolution to Scotland and Wales, which we supported, but in England some Ministers--not all of them--seem determined to increase their power and that of their department at the expense of adequate representation of the interests of local communities.
	The process is described as "modernisation"--a word that has literally no meaning but is used with monotonous regularity to justify propositions such as the one we are discussing. The Government propose in Schedule 1 that the chief probation officer should be appointed by the Home Secretary. The amendment proposes a sensible formula under which the local probation board, all of whose members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State in any event, should choose the chief probation officer, subject only to the consent of the Home Secretary. What is wrong with that?
	At first glance it may appear to some that the differences between us on the issue are pretty narrow, but they are not; they are of substance. We have the gravest objections to a local probation board having a chief officer imposed on it by a government department. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said, the CPO's principal loyalty would then have to be to the government department. If he wanted to move on to be a chief officer in another part of the country, he could apply only to the Home Secretary. There would be no question of local representatives asking him whether he was a fit and proper person to hold that office in their community.
	If the current provisions remain, they will create suspicion and hostility, which the amendment would avoid. The amendment would neatly create a system analogous to the appointment of chief officers of police, who are appointed not by Ministers, but by independent, locally based police authorities, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
	The formula has worked well for the police, so why should it not be replicated for local probation boards? I fear that there may be a clear answer. I understand from people outside the Home Office with knowledge and experience of the police service that the department is now examining a centralising formula to change that system as well. That would undermine the position of local police authorities on the appointment of chief officers of police.
	Where will the process of transferring power from local communities to Whitehall end? As I reminded the House some months ago, my old friend, the late Douglas Jay, caused a considerable uproar when, as a junior Minister in the post-war Labour Government, he said that in his opinion the gentleman in Whitehall really did know best. That approach lies at the heart of the argument. I do not believe that it is right. It may be suggested that the Government's approach would improve the efficiency of the service, but I doubt that it would. I have great respect for many Home Office officials with whom I have had the pleasure of working over the years. Many of them are men and women of considerable quality with an admirable dedication to the principles of public service. However, even some of them might recoil at the suggestion that these changes would automatically raise the quality of the Probation Service. Of course, mistakes can be made at local level and sometimes they are serious, but the Home Office can hardly suggest that its record is blameless. We all remember the disaster of the immigration and nationality department computer and the similar problems that beset the Passport Agency, resulting in long queues in Petty France for passports. The idea that central government knows best in all cases is an illusion.
	So much for the suggestion that national control of the service can be equated with greater efficiency. It is simply not true. We have an opportunity tonight to strike a blow against the policy of creeping centralisation of power to Whitehall. Let us take it.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I have been a Home Office Minister. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary is so keen to have the power to appoint and impose chief probation officers.
	In Committee the Minister said, and repeated regularly, that the whole purpose of the Bill is to have a national probation service locally delivered, presumably by means of the local, now to be called, probation boards. The Home Secretary already has the power to appoint the members and chairmen of those boards. Why cannot he accept that the people whom he appoints will be able to choose the right person as their chief probation officer? I cannot understand why he wishes to appoint that person himself rather than leave the board to appoint him, perhaps with the approval of the Secretary of State. As has been said, that is what happens in the police force. In many ways, one might consider that the position of a chief constable is far more sensitive than that of a chief probation officer. Yet, I believe that I am right in saying that the appointment of a chief constable is made by the police authority with the approval of the Secretary of State.
	In Committee my noble friend Lady Blatch asked what would happen if a conflict were to arise. I read the Minister's speech and I do not believe that he answered that question. It seems to me that potentially the proposal is a recipe for chaos. Presumably, in the end the chief probation officer's loyalty and duty will be to the person who appoints him rather than to a committee of which he is a member and on whose behalf he is intended to provide the local service.
	As has been said, at present there is an overweening desire in the Home Office to centralise power, and that is not helpful to the Probation Service. It would be far better for the local board to have the power to appoint its own probation officers. Then we really would have a national service locally provided.

Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps I may gently put forward an alternative point of view in relation to some of these issues and suggest that an excessive level of paranoia may exist with regard to some of the Home Office's approaches. Perhaps I may remind the House, first, that although chief constables are appointed at a local level, they are also appointed from a list approved by the Home Secretary. That long-standing practice has been in operation for many years on a bipartisan/tripartisan basis.
	Secondly, I remind the House that the Benches opposite removed regional health authorities and appointed civil servants as regional general managers as part of the NHS Executive. That practice has been in place for a considerable number of years. It was implemented to ensure more effective delivery of improved management throughout the NHS.
	Thirdly, perhaps I may remind the House of the report published in the past week or so by the Chief Inspector of the Probation Service about the fiasco over CRAMS, the Probation Service computer system. It is hardly a glittering testimony to local implementation of a much needed computer system.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is levelling an accusation at a service at local level. However, with considerable feeling I must tell him that the fault in relation to CRAMS is at national level and not at the service level.

Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to complete what I was about to say. I was going on to say that the fault lay at both levels. Problems exist in relation to the national implementation of computer systems both at national level within government service and at local level. The idea that all those faults rest in Whitehall, both under the noble Baroness's own government and under this Government, is frankly mistaken.
	I believe that as a result of the proposed change there will be greater integration across the criminal justice agencies, which is much needed at the local level. There will also be much greater consistency in the application and implementation of nationally agreed schemes.
	I also draw the House's attention to the fact that the Prison Service is a national service. At the heart of some of the changes lies the desire to ensure a closer working relationship between the Probation Service and the Prison Service. Correctly, the Prison Service is answerable through the Home Secretary to Parliament because deprivation of liberty is involved. However, perhaps I may suggest that a degree of deprivation of liberty is also involved in the Probation Service's work. That service enforces court orders which restrict the manoeuvrability and movement of people. One could argue that it is absolutely right that the Home Secretary, answerable through Parliament for the activities of a national service, should have a greater say over the appointment of chief officers at local level. I leave those points with noble Lords. I believe that there is another side to the story.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I had no intention of taking up the time of the House until I heard the noble Lord's opening remarks. I believe that he deserves considerable congratulations, not on his courage but on his audacity.
	I believed that we had listened to four or five moderate, statesmanlike, sensible speeches, with which I suspect that everyone on this side of the House will agree openly and publicly. I am sure that many on the government side will be of a similar view. However, when the noble Lord used the word "paranoia" about those speeches, I considered that he was over-stepping the mark by a very long way. I am sure that he has done a great deal to convince people such as myself that he is totally wrong and that those who have spoken so far on this side of your Lordships' House are entirely right.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one or two questions. I am reliably informed that at present at least 20 chief probation officers are not seeking employment in the new centralised service. That number could be as high as 24. When one considers that out of 52 probation areas in the country 24 chief probation officers are not seeking employment, that must indicate that something is fundamentally wrong with the principle that we are trying to establish.
	Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he undertook an exercise of holding exit interviews of the people who are working in the field to discover their opinion of the centralised service. If he had done so, he would have found that they are absolutely clear in their view that, if someone is employed centrally and working to a local board, there will be no accountability. More importantly, centralisation would take away the local initiative through which they have contributed so greatly to the probation work in their area.
	I believe that, in two or three years' time, management consultants will be appointed at the Home Office to find out how such a mistake occurred. Is it not time that we viewed local initiatives as being far more important than we do currently and that chief probation officers are seen as servants of the local boards?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have listened intently to the debate. I realise that the issue is important and that it goes to the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve. The noble Baroness suggested that I did not understand what she said in Committee. That is not at all the case. I understand perfectly the view of the noble Baroness and of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is a fundamental disagreement between us. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, spelt it out plainly. A fundamental disagreement exists in what we see as being the future of the national probation service.
	I want to go through the amendments briefly because they go further than has been suggested in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
	Amendment No. 4 provides for the appointment of chief officers to be made by local boards with the approval of the Secretary of State rather than by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 5 is a corollary of that, and takes away the Secretary of State's power to appoint chief officers. Amendment No. 33 would have the effect of providing for chief officers to be treated as any other employee of a probation board in respect of transfers to the new boards. Amendment No. 7 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations delegating certain functions of the local board to the chief officer, so it is more than just a question of the appointment, locally or nationally, of the chief officer of the local probation service.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, quoted part of the deliberations at Committee stage. I made the point then that this was to be a national service delivered locally. That is exactly what the Government intend. We believe that it is right to establish a national probation service for England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, seemed to conjure up some sinister implication from the fact that we had made a fundamental policy decision to establish a national rather than a local service and saw this as creeping centralisation.
	I have been in politics a long time and I take this very simple view. There are many services--perhaps the majority--that should be administered and delivered locally, and democratically decided upon locally. But there are some services that the Government believe--and no doubt Members opposite during their time in government believed--should be better run from the centre, for very good organisational and operational reasons and for reasons of policy consistency. We disagree about this particular service, and that is what this debate is about.
	One of the key advantages of a national service would be the ability to appoint chief officers centrally. Chief officers, in our view, are the key to successful service provision. Good management is about ensuring that we have a good quality service, whether it is administered nationally or locally. Good management is the key. We believe in creating a cadre of experienced, nationally appointed officers who understand--from the perspective of the centre, yes--exactly what it is we intend to achieve with a national service. We believe it is essential to be able to ensure that the appropriate people are appointed in the appropriate places.
	The Government also believe that it is important to make best use of the precious resource of the chief officer. We believe that there are various functions of boards that are best performed by chief officers without the need for reference to the board. We also consider it desirable for certain functions to be performed in a similar, consistent manner, throughout the national probation service for England and Wales. We do not want the chief officer in one area being able to do something but perhaps his or her counterpart needing to refer to the board in another area. The power to regulate on this matter, which will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, is a means of achieving that objective.
	One area in which we intend to regulate to provide for the delegation of functions from boards to chief officers is the recruitment of staff below assistant chief officer level, where it is right that the chief officer should have full powers without reference to the board.
	As I explained to the noble Baroness in Committee, these amendments, if carried, would put a large hole in the concept of a national probation service. They do drive a coach and horses through our policy objective. Any national organisation worth its salt should have the ability to appoint its senior executives centrally.
	The Government are satisfied that it is right for chief probation officers to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Our intention is to involve local board chairs in the chief officer appointments (where there is to be a change of chief officer) in order to ensure that there is some local say in the selection. But it is a matter of balance. The Government make no apology for believing that the central dimension should not be subjugated to the local. Quite frankly, the current system whereby chief officers are appointed locally has not delivered as efficient and effective a probation service as perhaps it should have done. There are many excellent chief probation officers and some excellent local services, but there are also some of lower quality. We believe that the appointment of chief officers will help to raise the standard and achieve greater consistency. It is for those reasons that we argue very strongly in favour of our case.
	The Government also believe that chief officers should be appointed by local boards to serve as statutory office holders rather than being employed by boards. This is essential in order to ensure a clear line management relationship between the Secretary of State and chief officials. Treating existing chief officers as any other employee of the probation committees or boards in respect of staff transfers to boards would defeat the objective.
	Clearly, we accept that there is disagreement between us on the way in which we intend to proceed. There is a philosophical divide, but it is one for which we make no apology. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who said that this was a recipe for chaos. What happens when one has central/local conflicts? At the moment there is, from time to time, a chaotic state of affairs that arises because of the relationship being the other way around. The Government's view is that these things are capable of resolution. We have to establish some partnerships to achieve that objective. At the end of the day the Government believe that in creating a national service we are much better off having a system of national appointments that will provide for consistency of service, of objective and of service delivery.
	For those very important and powerful reasons, we urge your Lordships' House to reject these amendments.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one thing that the noble Lord has said is absolutely right; namely, that there is a fundamental difference between us. I should like to think that it was a philosophical difference, but I do not believe it is. I think it is a practical one. We have an over-ambitious Secretary of State who is more interested in control at his own level than in the proper delivery of the service.
	The Minister's response, and the response at the previous stage, did not reflect an understanding of the arguments pressed, nor did the noble Lord address some of the key points raised in the debate. The noble Lord has said that one of the differences between us is that we do not actually agree with the principle of a national service. I have said more than once that I do not disagree with it. The noble lord, Lord Phillips, said he did not disagree with the idea of having a national service. We all agree that that service should be effectively delivered at a local level. We all know that between boards and sometimes even within boards the profile of an area is very different and will call for different responses from different chief officers who understand their own area. There is no divide on the principle of having a national service. There is a serious divide between us as to how it should be delivered at a local level.
	I repeat that the Secretary of State is not short of powers to deliver a consistent national service. He has powers to approve the appointment of the chief officer, but the appointment is made by the local boards. He has powers to appoint all the board members and, in extremis, to dismiss them. He has full control of 100 per cent of the funding of the service. He has the power to set the standards and the targets for the service. He can establish consistent performance. The noble Lord has said that it would be impossible to have consistency of performance. It is perhaps different from having a service that responds materially to the needs of the area. Consistency of performance can be secured through the inspectorate. Many mechanisms are available to the Secretary of State to do something about it if the service is not delivered.
	My noble friend Lord Carlisle asked about central/local conflict but the Minister did not answer. He simply referred to the point having been raised but he gave no true answer to that question. It is more than giving the local boards a say in the appointment of a chief officer.
	The noble Lord has misunderstood the debate. It is not about having a local say. It is a constitutional argument about ownership and responsibility going together at the operational level of the service in the local area. I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 185; Not-Contents, 121.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 52, line 11, leave out (", the chief officer").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 53, line 16, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can be very brief on this amendment which provides that in every area there shall be a secretary and a treasurer. The Minister appeared to hint that some areas may be too small to have a secretary and a treasurer. I suggest that no area will be so small that it could survive without a treasurer and a secretary. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, the Government really should accept this amendment. The idea that regulations may or may not provide that each local board should appoint a secretary and a treasurer seems to me absurd. Each one will need a secretary and a treasurer and the regulations should insist upon that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, this amendment would place an absolute requirement on the Government to make regulations so as, in turn, to require local boards to appoint a secretary or a treasurer.
	In most cases, local boards will want to appoint a secretary and a treasurer and the Government intend to lay regulations to deal with various conditions as to their appointment so as, for example, to ensure that treasurers belong to one of the recognised accountancy institutes.
	However, there may be cases where it is not appropriate for a local board to appoint its own secretary or treasurer. Boards covering only a small area, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, may, for example, feel that they do not need their own secretary or treasurer and that it would be better to buy in such services, either from another board or from elsewhere, such as a firm of chartered accountants. In that case, the board may well not want to appoint a particular individual to the position of secretary or treasurer but may prefer to contract with an outside firm for the purpose of securing such services.
	I understand the point raised by the noble Baroness. It may be that for nearly all services a secretary or a treasurer will need to be appointed. So if she withdraws her amendment, I certainly undertake to reflect more on the matter.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving an undertaking to reflect on this issue. However, given that the number of areas is to be reduced from 50 or so to 42, can he give the House one example of an area that would be too small to appoint a secretary or a treasurer?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to the heart of the matter. These posts are important so I would like to reflect on the matter. I have been reminded that the smallest area would be Gwent. I believe that the noble Baroness makes an important point, so I invite her to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with that generous offer I shall withdraw the amendment. However, if Gwent is an example of a small authority, the noble Lord does not have a leg to stand on in relation to this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 53, line 37, leave out paragraph 10.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 53, line 40, leave out from ("State") to the end of line 41 and insert ("shall pay to every local board such amounts as may be necessary for it to discharge properly its duties").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, more assurances are needed from the noble Lord that amounts paid to the service will not be as the Secretary of State wishes or considers necessary but reflect a real correlation with the remit given to the service by the Secretary of State--in other words, the job to be done--and that the resources will be consistent with the particular remit of the service. What the Minister has said so far is not sufficient to satisfy me on this point. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I have put my name to this important amendment. Under Clause 5 of the Bill, and in particular subsection (8), the Secretary of State can, at any time,
	"determine whether or not any provision made by a local board ... is sufficient".
	I believe that the House should permit this amendment.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I too feel strongly about this amendment. The Secretary of State should not simply assert his subjective opinion. There should be an objective test, as proposed in the amendment. If the Secretary of State fails in his duty, the matter can be taken before the courts and put right. In these circumstances it is not enough to leave the matter to the opinion of the Secretary of State.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 would replace the provision for the Secretary of State to make to local boards such payments as he considers appropriate with one requiring him to pay such amounts as,
	"may be necessary for it to discharge properly its duties".
	The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the subjective view of the Secretary of State should be replaced with an objective test. I want to believe that that would be possible with this wording, but I do not see that the amendment is any more objective than the current wording. In any event, Clause 3(1) already provides for a degree of objectivity in measuring exactly how resources are to be considered and made available to the local service.
	Another problem with the amendment is that it would place the Government in the position where their discretion to decide upon the appropriate amounts of expenditure would be reduced. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, may want to reflect on the point that this could open up the possibility of a legal challenge to probation budgets and whether that would be a healthy development.
	The Government's position is simple. We believe strongly in the work that the Probation Service undertakes with offenders, as we always have. That is why we argued against the cuts inflicted upon the service when we were in opposition and that is why in government we reversed those cuts imposed by the government of the noble Baroness. They cut training and finance and we reversed that situation. This Government did exactly that. We provided an extra £127 million over the three years covered by the current Comprehensive Spending Review, so we have lived up to our promises on this issue and we shall invest in the order of a further £400 million through the SR2000 process.
	We oppose this amendment. We believe that it should be for the government of the day to bring forward expenditure estimates to Parliament for discussion and approval. This amendment would tie the hands of the Government and would require them to provide such sums as may be "necessary", but who would define what is "necessary"? How objective a test would it be?
	In those circumstances, it would be open to local boards or individuals who felt that the Probation Service had been provided with insufficient funds to challenge the Government's spending commitment in the courts. Is that a course upon which noble Lords opposite, particularly those as experienced in court matters as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, wish us to embark? That cannot be satisfactory.
	In our view, the amendment risks undermining the authority of Parliament and is therefore misconceived. For those reasons I ask Members of your Lordships' House, particularly those on the Benches opposite, to think carefully before pressing this amendment, and in any event I ask the House to reject it.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I ask how this amendment flies in the face of Parliament--I cannot recall his phrase exactly--when all it seeks to do is ensure that the duties placed on local probation boards by this Bill can be discharged by their having the necessary wherewithal? How can that in any way conflict with normal parliamentary convention?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would undermine the authority of Parliament--as expressed in the operation of the service being through the Secretary of State, that being the line of accountability--to make a judgment as to what is or is not right in terms of adequately providing for the service. In doing that, it undermines the way the service operates nationally; and I cannot see, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, attempted to argue, that there can be some sort of objective test.
	The priorities for spending must be taken as a whole. That is what the spending review 2000 process went through, and the one before that. It measured the demands of each service and tried to apportion funds in accordance with a system of prioritisation. The amendment would undermine that system because it says, "You must deliver X amount to the service over a given period of time", before a judgment can be made as to where the service sits in relation to all other services.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is much more experienced than I am at arguing around the meaning of words in court scenarios. But how would he define "necessary" in a legal context? How would the noble Lord make that word stand up in terms of the argument about resources? How would he measure what is or is not necessary to make a service live up to the fine aspirations which most of us agree should exist for the service?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, as the Minister invited me to respond, I shall. The courts frequently have to interpret language of this nature. I seem to recollect that the word "necessary" is a term found in the regulation of investigatory powers legislation--a government measure. The court will look at it in relation to the duty imposed by Parliament and come to an objective view on whether or not, in this instance, the wherewithal for the necessary implementation of the duties has been provided by government. It is as simple or as complicated as that.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am baffled. I cannot understand how this amendment would undermine the power of Parliament, the influence of Parliament or how we carry out our work. My noble friend Lord Renton, who made a very wise intervention, was arguing for objectivity rather than subjectivity. Paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 1 to the Bill as drafted states:
	"The Secretary of State may pay to a local board any amount he considers appropriate".
	How much easier it would be if the actual link with funding was expressed as,
	"shall pay to every local board such amounts as may be necessary for it to discharge properly its duties".
	The duties are well set out. The targets that have to be met are set out. The aims and objectives of the service are set out by the Secretary of State and there is an inspector to ensure that the work is carried out. That inspector can comment on whether or not the resources are in fact adequate and can advise the Secretary of State what the resources should be. So I find the Minister's response extraordinary.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in responding to a previous amendment, said that he would like to reflect on the matter. This has been a short but important debate. Is the noble Lord prepared to reflect also on this matter and find a better form of words than,
	"any amount he considers appropriate",
	without any objective link to the level of service to be delivered at a local level?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am always happy to reflect on matters, as the noble Baroness will appreciate and understand. I am happy to take away this wording and see whether it can be improved, or whether we can improve on the wording in the Bill as drafted. I cannot make a commitment to come back with anything. However, I shall reflect on the debate and on the form of words offered in the amendment and compare them again with the words in the Bill before us.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister is in a generous frame of mind. I shall accept his response and hope that something can be agreed between now and the next stage of the Bill. If not, we shall certainly return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 54, line 12, after ("holding") insert ("or managing land and other").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is concern over the arrangements for holding and managing land and/or property; there is also concern about what the Home Office has in mind when taking control of property. Am I being too cynical in my thinking if I suggest that there may be cost-cutting in the guise of rationalisation of land and buildings? One only has to read what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wrote in letters both to the service and to those of us involved in the debate to understand why our suspicions are aroused in this way.
	Local employers need to be allowed to manage at local level. That involves, for all the services, reading the property needs of the area consistent with providing an effective service. Paragraph 28 of one of the helpful letters we received from the Minister, which I understand was copied to all Members involved in the debate, states:
	"We [the Government] are convinced, however, that there are sound reasons for concentrating ownership and overall management of the Probation estate in the national directorate. We believe these to be:
	accounting responsibility will be placed squarely on the Government;
	there will be a better opportunity to control investment, procurement and development so as to make the best use of all the assets of the National Probation Service".
	There is an issue in that statement in that the people who know best their property needs at local level will be the local service. It will be helpful to know from the Minister, first, how that will happen in practice; and, secondly, how the bureaucracy for doing that will be minimised. Every pound spent on unnecessary bureaucracy is a pound that does not go to the service itself.
	The letter goes on to state:
	"probation property will become part of the wider civil estate, with the benefits which accrue from that, including cost savings as a result of economies of scale and rationalisation".
	I am not so sure, looking around the Probation Service, that it has a great deal of surplus property. But let us give the Government the benefit of the doubt. They go on in the letter to state:
	"new boards and service managers will be able to concentrate on delivery of their core functions and not be distracted by issues involving real estate".
	Again, procuring, making bids for and asking for property development locally often involves a lot of time. So just because property management is being run nationally does not mean that somehow that time will be dissipated and can be used in the service itself. Therefore, it will be useful again to have chapter and verse from the Minister in relation to the specific arrangements.
	However, I find paragraph 29 almost offensive. It states:
	"It is also clear that the existing arrangements have worked far from well. For example, a detailed survey by Donaldsons, a firm of chartered surveyors, which took place in 1999 concluded that there was inadequate management of the estate despite excessive staffing"--
	I repeat, "excessive staffing"--
	"and that a fair proportion of it was unsuitable for purpose and in poor repair".
	May I suggest that, if it is "unsuitable for purpose" and it is "in poor repair", that reflects more on the department than it does on the service at local level? The department, as I understand the way in which the service works at the moment, actually approves capital spending for any changes and any refurbishments at local level. The Government go on to state:
	"We believe that a more rational national approach will help to remedy these deficiencies and benefit the service as a whole".
	The service would surely say "hurrah" to that if the service going national meant that all its property needs would be met in a more effective way than at the moment; but I feel the slight cast on the service in that paragraph is regrettable. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we on these Benches support this group of amendments. We believe that some of the Government's justification for the proposals in the Bill, and in Schedule 1 in particular, is spurious and will not be realised in practice. Far from relieving local probation boards of concern and worry, the proposals are likely to add to them. Nothing can be more frustrating than having relatively modest property matters dealt with via Whitehall, with the distancing and bureaucracy that that can and often does mean. I know from experience on quangos that it is a great boon to be able to handle one's own property matters. It invariably leads to quicker, more effective, more efficient and, in the end, cheaper property arrangements.
	As the boards will have the important task of keeping an eye on their own expenditures, it is important that they should be able to strike local bargains. A centralised property service may be unable to do that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in reflecting on what has been said in this short debate, I see that the argument is part and parcel of our earlier arguments about central versus local. It ought not to be. We are proposing a national service, creating a more rational, better and efficient use of the resources available to each board. I shall deal first with the amendments and then the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
	Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 and 34 to 36 change the wording of various provisions in the Bill relating to the powers of local boards in respect of land and other property. Amendment No. 9 would give the local boards a specific power to hold and manage land as well as other property, subject to directions given by the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would remove the Bill's current prohibition on boards holding land and instead make both holding and managing land permissible, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. That is a reflection of the language of earlier amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer land from probation committees to local boards. I understand, therefore, that that is an enabling provision.
	I believe that there has been a great deal of confusion about the question of holding and managing land and other property. Perhaps I may remind the House that we spent a great deal of time debating the issue in Committee. As the noble Baroness fairly said, I have written to her and circulated the correspondence widely in order to try to clarify the position.
	However, perhaps I may try again to make the Government's position clear. We believe that it would be wrong for the local boards to hold land. In a national organisation, which the national probation service for England and Wales will be, it is appropriate and sensible for the ownership of all land to be held at the centre. We will therefore be clear about who holds the land and why they hold it.
	On the other hand, in balancing that, we have every intention that local boards should have full day-to-day control over the properties they occupy and that they should have such control as is currently provided in the Bill. Within that framework, we believe that it would be absurd for local management to have to refer to headquarters its need to call in plumbers, electricians or local service providers. That would be ridiculous. That must be understood but it was the proposition served up to your Lordships in Committee.
	If understanding has moved on from there, I am pleased. I hope that my correspondence addressed those issues. However, it must be the case that within a regime of best value, where we are seeking to optimise the greatest benefit from the national holding of an estate and to procure more major services, the national holding of such assets makes a great deal of sense.
	The noble Baroness had a suspicion that the proposal was somehow linked to cost cutting. I find that a strange suspicion for her to hold because, as I made plain in earlier debates, we are investing substantial additional sums. We have, effectively, reversed cuts which were imposed on the service in the mid-1990s. In proposing the arrangement for holding property and land we are seeking simply to make better use of it.
	The structure of the national probation service will mean that we reduce the number of board areas from 50 to 43 so that they are coterminous with the police authority areas. It seems to me sensible that in that process we should seek to manage our land, buildings and so forth nationally. The rationalisation can then be conducted sensibly. No doubt from that it will be seen that the arrangements we are seeking to put in place are for the long-term benefit and improvement of the service.
	I happen to believe--the Government, too, happen to believe--that local probation boards should concentrate on the job in hand; that is, administering and delivering local probation services. That is exactly what they should be about. They should not be involved in the day-to-day management of property, a function which I believe can properly be left to the headquarters--the major agency--of the national probation service.
	That is what we are trying to achieve through the legislation. There is no sinister or other agenda. The proposals are not about cost cutting but about ensuring that good, beneficial, best-value principles are in place so that we can conduct the management of the estate in a more effective and efficient direction. I would have hoped that the noble Baroness would see the sense of that.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he not concede that he is throwing away one of the advantages of the structure he has put into the Bill? Is it not self-apparent that as regards local property matters a local board, with a chief probation officer and staff, will be much nearer mother earth than can conceivably be the case through a centralised service?
	The Minister neatly divided operational and property matters, but in the real world nothing is more frustrating and obstructive to getting things moving than having a property issue decided from afar. In many cases, it can be dealt with quickly, cheaply and efficiently on one's own doorstep. The argument is therefore not one of principle but of practicality.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a useful contribution. However, I believe that from time to time the local board, with its chairman or chief officer, will need to make a business case to the centre for perhaps a change in the way in which the totality of the probation estate, administered by a local area board, is run and organised. It should make that business case on an understanding that ultimately it will need to be guided and advised within a national framework.
	Through such a process, we gain the benefit of local knowledge and advice and of having a national schema which enables the efficiencies of a larger body of procurement to take place and roll through. Those are good procurement efficiency objectives, as I would have thought the noble Lord would understand.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, again, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Can he explain what is the "national schema" as regards property matters? What possible national issue could bear on the decision of a local probation board as to whether to have a hostel in Smith Street or in Acacia Avenue?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, clearly the "national schema" is the scheme for the national probation service which we seek to set up through the delivery of this legislation. If there is a national organisation of substance, although perhaps not the largest in the world, efficiencies can be achieved by having someone with responsibility for the running and good management of the estate which is held nationally. But it is important that local efficiencies are brought to the attention of the national organisation. Therefore, the relationship between local and national level is important.
	From time to time, undoubtedly there will be a need to develop a business case for the rationalisation, development, rebuilding and recasting of how the service operates through its local estate. That is a carefully negotiated relationship. We want the best of local advice and the handling of procurement on a nation-wide basis. We believe that we can achieve that objective much more effectively by holding the estate nationally in this way.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the response is bewildering. The Government now appear to be much more concerned about national control. What matters at the end of the day is the most efficient and effective delivery of the service to the people on the ground in local areas. There is a constant concern--almost fetish--about the national position. We do not disagree with the Minister that there should be consistency of service and performance across the country with the setting of national standards, and that the Secretary of State should have the funding rather than that it be split as between local and national level. However, the service must be delivered locally; for example, the manning of interview rooms which are confidential to the client groups. Therefore, property management is a real local issue.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, sometimes I believe that the noble Baroness does not understand that crime is a national and international phenomenon. The Probation Service is an important part of the machinery of enforcement, and I believe that it is sensible to talk about the creation of a national service. I agree that probation officers should understand the importance of creating and delivering the service at local interview rooms. Those kinds of issues can be resolved when a property is managed locally. I do not believe that the noble Baroness sees the bigger picture. That is the important point on which I ask the noble Baroness to reflect.
	I have always had a good deal of respect for Conservative politicians who argue for the creation and design of effective and efficient services because there is common ground between us. What we seek here is to create efficiencies in the system. I believe that the argument of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is against those principles, particularly with regard to national procurement.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand all too well that crime is a national issue with which the Government should concern themselves. I have no argument with that. If one looks at the example of the local management of schools, which was initiated by us and is supported by the Government and the Liberal Democrats, the whole point of it is that every pound spent at local level achieves very much better value for money than local government or central government can possibly achieve. Why is that? Local people have a vested interest in freeing up every possible pound that can be used in operating the service, whether it be a school, a hospital or the Probation Service. That is the point which the Minister misses the whole time.
	The noble Lord referred to the Probation Service and police authorities being coterminous. I do not believe that nationally the Government own all the police property and land. Therefore, in that case there is a distinction between national and local ownership. The local service will jealously guard the value for money factor. Local people have a real vested interest because they benefit from good value-for-money decisions. I do not understand the Government's case, and the Government have not understood my points and those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 178; Not-Contents, 133.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
	Page 54, line 18, after ("hold") insert ("or manage").
	Page 54, line 18, at end insert ("without the approval of the Secretary of State").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Functions of local boards]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 3, leave out line 5 and insert ("in respect of its area for the purposes mentioned in section 1 and for ensuring the performance of any other functions conferred by virtue of this Act or any other enactment on the board,").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 and 102 are designed to ensure that the new statutory responsibilities placed on the Probation Service by Clause 66 in connection with the victims of certain offences are fully integrated at the heart of probation work and systems.
	Subsection (8) of Clause 66 was designed to ensure that the local boards could use people other than their own staff to perform their functions in respect of victims. This arrangement would be helpful, for example, when an offender lived in a different area. The responsible local board would be able to arrange for the local board in the area where the victim lived to undertake liaison work on its behalf. But there is nothing in Clause 66 to ensure that other general provisions in respect of probation services actively apply to this important work with victims.
	The amendments, which delete the specific provision from Clause 66 and create a general provision in Clause 5, will ensure that this work with victims is subject to inspection and can be complained about by using the complaints procedure, as well as ensuring that local boards can use people other than their own staff to perform their functions in respect of victims. Moreover, these general provisions will, if the amendments are accepted, apply to any further functions conferred upon local boards under Clause 5(5).
	Amendment No. 13 is a drafting amendment which ensures that local boards will be able to make arrangements for any of their work to be undertaken on their behalf by another organisation where it is deemed appropriate. As currently drafted, using the word "functions", Clause 5(2)(a) could be taken as referring only to functions defined in Clause 5. The amendment extends the subsection to anything done by a local board for the purposes as defined in Clause 1.
	I recognise that noble Lords opposite are on a bit of a roll today, but I am rather hoping that these amendments will be seen as helpful, uncontroversial and an improvement to the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord intends to be helpful. I hope he will be more helpful and explain to me where he wants to end up if the amendments are accepted. I half expected the noble Lord, in moving the amendment, to say that the amendments in the group were all drafting ones and should therefore be waved through with a green flag. He nobly resisted that temptation. But he now has to tell noble Lords why the Government were not satisfied. That is not clear to me from his brief speech. I have two questions. First, why were the Government not satisfied with things as they were? Secondly, what precisely do the three amendments together do which was not done in the earlier version? As a result, is the noble Lord left in a state of blissful content with the new version? I should like to be assured on those points.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, we are trying to improve the way in which the legislation works so that it is more flexible, enabling the service to work with other areas in a more effective and efficient manner. For instance, where the offender lives in a different area, the responsible local board will be able to make arrangements for the local board in the area where the victim lives to undertake liaison work on his behalf. We are seeking to create and engender more efficiency and greater flexibility across the service. As the noble Lord said, I could have stated that these are technical and drafting amendments. But what we are trying to do is make the legislation workable and remove inflexibilities within it.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in general I speak in support of the proposals. However, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. It concerns a point which I and other noble Lords might have been expected to pick up earlier. Subsection (5) of Clause 5 states:
	"Regulations may confer further functions on local boards".
	Amendment No. 12 brings that into the main provision of Clause 5(1)(a). As the clause is drafted, would it not be possible for wide, extra duties to be incorporated into the Bill without the use of the affirmative procedure in either House?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that that would be the effect of the amendment. I certainly hope that that would not be the case. We need to be clear about what we can and cannot do. It is exactly for that reason that the amendments have been introduced. However, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. He is a consummate reader of the detail. I would not like there to be any suspicion in his mind so I shall take further advice on the point that he has raised.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("for") to ("behalf") in line 14 and insert ("provision to be made on the board's").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 3, line 24, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("supervision").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I feel very strongly about this amendment. I received a letter from the noble Lord giving the Government's defence of the words in the Bill. The Bill refers to a board,
	"providing accommodation in approved premises for persons who have at any time been charged with or convicted of an offence".
	As we know, the crude statistics in this country show that a third of all males under the age of 30 have committed an offence other than a driving offence. When one takes that across the whole of the population, one is talking about a potentially massive client group.
	In his letter the noble Lord admitted that in Committee he had not explained very well the Government's proposals. He said:
	"I am not sure that I explained the Government's intentions as to hostels very clearly in the debate at Committee stage".
	That is true, because I certainly did not understand some of the arguments that were made. The noble Lord also said in his letter that when the Bill was originally drafted the intention was to have three kinds of bail hostels; bail hostels, community rehabilitation hostels, and so-called "other premises". That has been overtaken by some changes. The amended version of Clause 9 simply provides for the Secretary of State to approve premises which could accommodate either those granted bail or those who are being supervised or rehabilitated, having been convicted of an offence.
	I am comparing what was said in the noble Lord's letter with what is stated in the Bill. I keep on going back to the Bill, which refers to,
	"accommodation in approved premises for persons who have at any time been charged with or convicted of an offence".
	The noble Lord rightly said that that includes offenders on community sentences, not necessarily those on community rehabilitation orders, and those on licence. In paragraph 36 of his letter the noble Lord said that,
	"hostels would only accommodate those who needed to be there because of their bail conditions or because of the need for ... a supervised environment in terms of protecting the public and helping to prevent their reoffending".
	When the noble Lord addressed these issues in Committee he used the word "supervise" throughout his response. I want the word "supervision" on the face of the Bill. That is what the noble Lord was saying and that is what the noble Lord continued to emphasise that he meant and the Government meant. If that is the case, it is right that it should appear on the face of the Bill. But the Bill does not say what the noble Lord said in his letter, that,
	"hostels would only accommodate those who needed to be there because of their bail conditions or because of the need for ... a supervised environment in terms of protecting the public and helping to prevent their reoffending".
	The noble Lord went on to say:
	"In the overwhelming majority of cases, residents would, as now, be those currently on bail, currently serving a community sentence or currently on licence".
	That is not true, either. The Bill refers to persons who at any time have had a conviction. They could be people in their 50s or 60s who had a conviction many years ago. That is what the Bill actually states. For example, it could be used as a means of providing temporary homes for the homeless--for a homeless person who has had a conviction. That is not what hostels are about.
	In paragraph 37 the noble Lord said:
	"Clause 9, as amended, does not restrict the power to accommodate offenders to those currently serving a sentence".
	That is the point I have just made. It continues:
	"This is in order to provide the opportunity where, and only where, it is necessary to accommodate dangerous offenders released from prison without licence and those on licence who are not strictly 'serving a sentence'. There will only be a handful of such cases, but in these circumstances it is quite possible that accommodation for a period in a hostel will be a most effective way to protect the public".
	I agree with that, but it is not in the Bill. The Bill does not say that. It is what the noble Lord is saying he thinks the Bill means, but it is not in the Bill. What would help would be for the noble Lord to accept my amendment so that the accommodation was supervised accommodation.
	The noble Lord referred to someone being on bail who would not necessarily be on a supervision order. That is also true. But the reason that person is put in a hostel is so that he can be supervised. In the eyes of the court there is a fear that he might run away or default on his appearance in court. So there is a degree of supervision even with people who are on remand, waiting for their cases to come to court but are on bail and have been referred to a hostel; otherwise, why not send them to their homes or to bed-and-breakfast or some other accommodation?
	Bail hostels are to be used because, for whatever reason, the people there are to be supervised. It is important that the word appears on the face of the Bill. If the noble Lord is intent on repeating what he said on the previous occasion--that he is in fact talking about supervision--the logical next step would be to accept the word "supervision" on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, let us try to understand the amendments and see whether there is so much between us. By changing the word "accommodation" to "supervision", Amendment No. 14 would have the effect of preventing local boards from providing hostels. I do not think that that is what the noble Baroness wants to do.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not so.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the effect of the change in the wording. Amendment No. 15 would arguably restrict the role of local boards to those currently on bail or serving a sentence. Perhaps it is not the intention of the noble Baroness to achieve either of those two objectives.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me who would be referred to a hostel for whom there would be no degree of supervision?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall pause to think about that. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, we are trying to resolve practical matters in a practical way. That should be done in a fair-handed way.
	There is perhaps a misunderstanding in the noble Baroness's approach. The noble Baroness said that in Committee I had used the word "supervision" throughout my commentary in responding to her points. That is perfectly true. But our argument in part is that one does not need to have all of these words in the Bill for the issue of supervision to be very much at the heart of the way in which the service is delivered locally. That is an important point.
	Perhaps I may return to the thread of my argument. Were we to accept Amendment No. 15, it would remove the ability to work with the small number of dangerous offenders who are no longer under sentence but where it is in the interests of protecting the public for them to be supervised on a voluntary basis by the Probation Service. I realise that the noble Baroness is troubled by the provision, but I am referring to a group in respect of which we feel that it is most important for such supervision to be put in place--because of the voluntary basis on which such people would be placed in a hostel.
	Hostels form an important part of the armoury available to the Probation Service for helping to reduce reoffending and to protect the public. All residents in hostels will be subject to the hostel regime, which will include strict curfew conditions and a prohibition on alcohol. Those are important restrictions. Hostels do not concern only accommodation, but the inclusion of the word "accommodation" is necessary.
	The noble Baroness appears to want to strike the word "accommodation" from the Bill. If we remove it, hostels would take on a very different meaning. Surely the noble Baroness understands that that would be the case. It is necessary to include the word to enable the Probation Service to provide hostels and to carry out this valuable work. However, the use of the word would not mean that such hostels could be used for anyone who is homeless. Hostels are used for a particular purpose. For that reason, we oppose Amendment No. 14.
	If the noble Baroness is confused--I am sure that sometimes it can happen--about the purpose of hostels, perhaps she would reflect on that point.
	As I said earlier, we oppose Amendment No. 15, which would remove the ability to use hostel accommodation for a small number of dangerous offenders no longer on licence. In general, hostels accommodate three types of person: those remanded while still on bail; those serving community sentences; and those released from prison on licence. However, as I have said, they will also be used for a small number of dangerous offenders who have been released from prison, having reached the end of their sentence, but who still present a danger to the public.
	The Government believe that it is right to protect the public by accommodating such offenders on a voluntary basis for a period in approved hostels. Hostel regimes, with their curfews and their structured regimes, offer a better opportunity to reduce the risk of reoffending and public harm than if those offenders were simply to be left to their own devices in the community.
	Were noble Lords to accept Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, they would undermine what we are trying to achieve here. A situation would be created that would be far worse than that which is currently in place. Furthermore, it would undermine our objectives in terms of law enforcement and reducing the risk of reoffending. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness seeks that as an objective. It would appear to run counter to her entire approach, but then I am often amazed by the words of the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Lord please tell me--in words that I and my colleagues in the House will understand--what, in a legal sense, it is about my amendment that would prevent the supervision of the most dangerous criminals just referred to by the noble Lord?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am becoming a little puzzled at the approach being adopted by the noble Baroness. Earlier she suggested that I had referred to "supervision" throughout my arguments put forward in Committee. Her argument appeared to pursue the notion that, by reason of those references, we should now put that word into the Bill. However, "supervision" goes to the core of what the Probation Service should provide when sentences are served in the community. My argument here is that the word "accommodation" needs to be in place because, clearly, one purpose behind the running of hostels is that such accommodation will be supervised. There is therefore no need to specify it in the legislation.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise only to conclude my remarks on this amendment because I know that the noble Lord is becoming anxious. What in my amendment would legally preclude the most dangerous people from being supervised in the accommodation? The noble Lord has not answered the question. I am pressing this point because the noble Lord's response has been based on that premise; namely, that my amendment would be dangerous because it would preclude that.
	I am not satisfied with the response that I have received from the noble Lord.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if it would be of help, I shall respond once again to the noble Baroness. She may well then take a different view.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 180; Not-Contents, 126.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 3, line 25, leave out ("at any time").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Functions of inspectorate]:

Lord Windlesham: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 4, line 30, at end insert (", provided that no such direction shall merge the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons").

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, on the first day in Committee, a similar amendment aimed at preventing any merger of the functions of the Chief Inspector of Probation and the Chief Inspector of Prisons was the subject of a short debate. Despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, speaking in his capacity as Bishop to the Prisons, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch--all of whom have first-hand knowledge of the working of the penal system--our arguments were dismissed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, as being put forward,
	"in the wrong place at the wrong time".--[Official Report, 2/10/00; col. 1204.].
	I hope that this debate today is the right place and the right time.
	Frankly, I was surprised by the strength of feeling expressed subsequently on this issue, both inside the House on a cross-party basis, and by the Probation Service. This further amendment is the result.
	The timing is opportune as consideration is currently being given by Ministers to proposals either for an integrated inspectorate to cover both the prisons and the Probation Service, or to finding other ways for the two inspectorates to work more closely together. Under existing legislation, it would be possible to appoint the same person as both Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation. If the amendment is accepted, no such appointment could be made. All of the other options for joint working would remain open.
	To avoid repeating what I said in Committee about the need for a separate Chief Inspector of Prisons, let me summarise as briefly as possible why, under the plans for a national probation service, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation believes that it is essential that the reorganised service should continue to have its own chief inspector. It should be said at once that the stance of the chief officers depends not on institutional pride or possessiveness, but on a recognition of the realities of joint working.
	We are speaking now not in the vague generalities so beloved by Ministers--and so evident in the consultation document--of "joined-up government" and "seamless approaches" and so on, but of the reality of current practice. The Probation Service already co-operates closely with the Prison Service in the form of joint inspections or thematic reviews carried out by the inspectorates of prisons and of probation. Recent examples are the comprehensive reviews on life sentence prisoners and the preparation of prisoners for release and resettlement. This type of joint working is highly desirable; it is likely to continue, and it does not call for any legislative intervention.
	What the recent consultation document fails to recognise is that only about one-third of the work of the Probation Service overlaps with that of the prisons, whereas virtually all of its work is linked to the courts or the police, or to both. The service also works closely with health authorities in respect of drugs and mentally disordered offenders, as well as with local authorities, particularly in the context of the relatively new and promising youth justice initiatives--I say that in the presence of the chairman of the Youth Justice Board, to whom credit is due. There is merit in joint inspections in each of these areas of probation work in the community as a means of recognising shared responsibilities and promoting best practice.
	However, as to the possibility of a joint chief inspector for prisons and for probation, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation has been forthright in its response to the Home Office consultation document. The association points out that the document,
	"provides no evidence of the benefits to the Prison Service of this proposal. ACOP believes it would be to the detriment of Probation, in that inspections would be driven by the larger organisation, the Prison Service. The flexibility in choice of thematics, speed of response and focus on performance would, we believe, be lost if we were to become part of a much larger Inspectorate with a very different brief and culture to that of our own".
	Ministers should take heed of those words in their reply to the debate. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on this side of the House support the amendment. We debated this issue in Committee, and we were not convinced by the explanation offered by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out that at that stage the issue was being discussed in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Minister said that the amendment was flawed because it prejudged an important discussion, debate and deliberation about the inspectorate that the Government wanted to develop and deliver in terms of the final consultation.
	The Minister can continue to have his consultation. But one area that we want to rule out is a merger of the two inspectorates. It is not about having a joined up service within the criminal justice system. What one suspects is at the back of it is the embarrassment faced by the Government in relation to report after report produced by the inspectorates.
	No one disputes that a great deal of work is now in train to ensure that the Prison Service and the Probation Service co-ordinate their activities. A number of examples have been cited by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. Whatever is done, to merge the two inspectorates completely and appoint a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation would damage rather than improve the effectiveness of inspections. First, there would be a risk of over-stretching the joint chief inspector and reducing the benefits that arise from having two inspectors with specialist expertise--which has been such a strength in the arrangements under Sir David Ramsbotham and Sir Graham Smith. Secondly, there is a real risk that establishing a joint inspectorate would blunt the public impact of the reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, which have been so valuable in focusing the attention of the public, practitioners and politicians on the need for prison reform.
	In a Question for Written Answer, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich asked how many organisations and individuals had, by 2nd October, expressed support for the Government's proposals and how many had opposed them. The answer may not come as a surprise to anyone on this side of the House. It was that having a joint chief inspector of prison and probation was not an option favoured by any respondent. The consultation period concludes today. It would be helpful to know from the Minister how many finally opted for the proposal. I look forward to his reply.
	There are additional arguments against a joint approach. The Prison Service and the Probation Service come from historically different traditions. There is always a tension between the custodial approach and the community tradition which has never been effectively resolved by any government. We need to ensure that this healthy tension is translated into the way these agencies interact without swamping each other.
	There is a clear distinction between loss of liberty through imprisonment and loss of liberty through community sentences. This distinction should never be blurred; the distinction of being in prison as against serving a community sentence must be protected.
	There has always been a healthy tension in the objectives of the Prison Service and the Probation Service. On the one hand, there is the continuing culture of single-minded institutional security and management of the Prison Service; on the other, there is the local enthusiasm and initiative in the Probation Service for community based penalties. The way in which the Government intend to centralise such services is a clear indication that prison objectives would override community dynamics.
	Despite the statements in the Government's consultation document, it is no secret that the Chief Inspector of Prisons has by and large stuck to inspecting custody conditions during incarceration. There are very specific, rather than overlapping issues. Moreover, his reports have not only embarrassed the Home Office in terms of its inaction but have also spurred it on to take urgent action on prison culture and conditions.
	No one disputes the need for better co-ordination on matters of common interest between the Prison Service and the Probation Service. There is nothing to stop ad hoc arrangements, secondments, etc, as happens in many statutory departments.
	I wonder whether the Home Office has taken into account the enormity of what a joint inspectorate would entail. Perhaps I may give an example. The two services have a combined staff of some 60,000; 125,000 people start probation every year and 140,000 are received into custody. Where are the resources?
	In conclusion, prisons face problems that are significantly different to those of the Probation Service. Consistency of treatment is more likely to come from adhering to high standards of professional conduct and respect for human rights and the dignity of the individual than through a joint inspectorate.
	Clearly, the Government are obsessed by central control. Perhaps I may quote what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said about the criminal justice system. They are entirely appropriate to this debate. In an interview with the New Statesman, he advised the Government to leave the criminal justice system alone for a while. He added:
	"There is a great danger that the system becomes punch drunk".
	That is precisely the case here. We simply wish that the Home Office would stop interfering with a system of inspection which has delivered all that is asked of it and which has the confidence of the public in the way it performs its task. I support the amendment.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, the amendment, ably and skilfully introduced by the two previous speakers, gives the Government an opportunity to get out of a difficulty in which they find themselves. I am quite specific and blunt about that.
	Prisons remain to a large extent a forgotten element in our society. Prisoners have no vote. I have the impression that Members in another place do not on the whole take a great interest in what happens in prisons. The attention of the media is wayward, even perverse. No serving Prime Minister, so far as I can discover, has ever visited a prison. That is a significant fact. Such forgetfulness is highly dangerous to our society. It is useful only to those whose idea of criminal justice is to fill and over-fill our prisons without considering what happens once people are inside them.
	Prisons are a part of our society. Those who are sent there come from our society; they usually represent its dark underside. Perhaps more importantly, they return to society when they are released. Therefore, what happens in prison to the drug addicts, paedophiles and young offenders is of importance to all of us. We need to know.
	At the moment, rightly or wrongly, the best illumination that comes to us of the state of our prisons emanates from the reports of the present Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, and those of his predecessor, Sir Stephen Tumim. Those reports cast a shaft of light through the fog of misconception, which so often surrounds this subject. Why? It is because they do not deal just with principles and generalisations; they convey the facts, the figures and the feel of individual prisons, one by one.
	I had the privilege of accompanying the chief inspector and his team on a prison inspection not long ago. I was deeply impressed by the team's professionalism. The team gives praise where praise is due--and it often is due--but it is also blunt in its criticism where that is justified. Of course, it is that criticism which, inevitably, gets into newspaper reports.
	From their knowledge of government, noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that there is some grumbling and some tut-tutting about these reports in Whitehall; and about the brisk, military style in which they are couched and the attention which they, therefore, receive. I have not heard anyone say, "Who will rid me of this of this turbulent chief inspector?" It has not got as far as that--indeed, it could not get as far as that--but of the irritation, I have no doubt and much evidence.
	That is the background against which the Government, quite properly, are considering the relationship, first, between the prison and probation services and now, more narrowly, between the inspectorates of those two services. They have issued a consultation paper. The two previous speakers clearly illustrated what the response to that consultation has been. Today the Prison Reform Trust, which I chair, has written in response to the consultation to the Home Office explaining why, after a good deal of thought and research, we share the conclusions already reached by the two previous speakers; namely, that the changes proposed--certainly the amalgamation of the inspectorates--are not justified and would be confusing.
	Against the background that I have briefly sketched, it might be thought that this exercise is part of an attempt to muffle in some way the voice of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and his successors by a reorganisation--an unnecessary and confused amalgamation--of two different bodies. I hope that that belief is unfounded. At any rate, the Government have an opportunity today to dispose of any such suspicion. They can accept this amendment and that line of argument will fall away, leaving the rest of it to be discussed on its merits.
	It is very important that it should be clear that this House, the other place and the Government are in favour of the kind of straightforward, clear and blunt reports that we receive from the chief inspector. In my view, it is essential that such reports continue to come through both sharp and clear as is the case at present. They should not be complicated by other considerations and other relationships. We need that clarity and we should insist on keeping it.

Lord Warner: My Lords, at the risk of being accused, again, by a noble Lord opposite of being audacious, I should like to advance a few opposing points in response to some of the extremely persuasive arguments put forward by previous speakers, whose judgment I have the greatest respect for in this area. However, I have to say that those arguments tend to look backwards rather than forwards to the future and to the kind of changes that might improve the criminal justice system in an evolutionary way.
	I recognise that noble Lords opposite are on something of a roll. But when people rush to the "Contents" Lobby in the way that they have been doing of late, they might like to reflect on the fact that, on the previous amendment, they actually voted for the Home Secretary to be unable to pay for accommodation to safeguard the public from dangerous sex offenders like Robert Oliver. I just mention that in passing because that is what has actually been voted for this afternoon.
	Therefore, before we rush again into the Division Lobby, I should like to expound on the arguments for not voting for this amendment. I, too, pay great tribute to Sir David Ramsbotham for his excellent and thought-provoking reports, as well as the work that he has accomplished in exposing inadequacies in the Prison Service. His reports have often drawn attention also to the fact that the good work carried out in the Prison Service is sometimes undermined on release. One of the underlying approaches that the Government have adopted is to seek to improve the working relationship and the operational co-operation between the Prison Service and the Probation Service. Moreover, alongside this process, there is also the increasing use of technology in terms of community supervision as an alternative to custody, as well as changes in the character of some of the sentences being imposed in the criminal justice system. At the same time, the Government have announced a review of the sentencing framework.
	I suggest to noble Lords that these ideas and developments are working to blur the line between custody and community supervision. That is all to the good, both as regards protecting the public and improving the chances of offenders not reoffending in the future. If that is going on in the services that are being inspected, it seems to me to be slightly rash--whatever one may think about the Government's intentions in relation to present incumbents--to say that we should never consider the Home Secretary of the day, whoever it may be, issuing directions (which is what the power under the Bill will provide) on the way that inspections might be conducted in relation to subject areas that straddle the probation and prison services. That is what this amendment would achieve.
	Noble Lords should perhaps bear in mind the experience of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and of the National Crime Squad. A distinguished Member of the other place from the party opposite acts as chairman of both those bodies to ensure the co-ordination of their work. Indeed, it might actually be in the interests of both the Probation Service and the Prison Service if there were a greater degree of commonality of function of personnel straddling both inspectorates. I am not saying that that is the Government's intention; indeed, I do not know what that is. However, we seem to get a little anxious about their intentions in this area.
	In conclusion, I should mention that it is the current Home Secretary who put in place rigid timetables for the publication of reports by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons--a set of arrangements that was not in place under the previous government, resulting in very long delays before the publication of such reports.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, surely the argument against the possibility of such a merger is that the tasks of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and of the Chief Inspector of Probation are, by their very nature, different. I accept that the criminal justice system must be considered as a whole, but the duty of the Chief Inspector of Probation is to deal with those services that provide for the punishment and rehabilitation of prisoners within society. The duty of the Chief Inspector of Prisons is surely to oversee the conditions in prisons as regards those who are contained within them.
	It has been said that a society is often judged by the way in which it treats those whom it keeps in captivity. The great advantage with the Chief Inspector of Prisons is surely that he has shown fearlessness in acting on behalf of society and reporting what he sees, at times, to be the failings of the service. It would be a an awful pity were that task of the Chief Inspector of Prisons to be diluted in any way by giving him other tasks in addition. I am sure that the Minister will accept that there have been rumours abroad for some time that the Home Office intends to get rid of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, or his post, when he retires. Will he give the House an assurance tonight that that is not the Government's intention and that they do not intend to merge the two posts?

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, an independent voice in your Lordships' House would like to add how important I think it is to have an independent Chief Inspector of Prisons. It has been this independence which has made the appointment so worth while and effective.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. If the spin that is being put out to defend the Government's position this afternoon in the light of the defeats that have occurred, distorts my amendment in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, did, I believe that that is a regrettable action on someone's part.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I was not putting any spin on the matter; I recounted to the House the practical consequences of Amendment No. 14. I spoke of Robert Oliver. The Home Secretary would not be able to pay for Robert Oliver's accommodation under the terms of the noble Baroness's amendment which the House accepted.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 amend subsection (3)(b) of Clause 5 to read:
	"The provision that may be made in pursuance of such arrangements includes providing services to any person and, in particular--
	(a) giving assistance to persons remanded on bail or for whom officers of the board have responsibilities,
	(b) providing supervision in approved premises for persons who have been charged with or convicted of an offence".
	There is nothing there that does not allow the Secretary of State to provide accommodation. As I say, if that is the spin that is being put on the effect of the amendment, that is regrettable.
	The Association of Chief Officers of Probation would argue, and rightly so, that two-thirds of the work of the Probation Service does not overlap with that of prisons, and that almost all probation work is linked to the police and to the courts. Therefore, the logic of any merger is that the service has more in common with the police and the courts than with prisons. That is not to say--my noble friend Lord Windlesham made this point--that where there is overlap there should not be some coherence of inspecting services.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, reminded us that there has not officially been a suggestion that there is to be a merger of the two services. We must accept what the Minister has said, but I have to tell him that there is an extremely noisy rumour around Whitehall and throughout the service that the Government have it in mind to merge the two inspectorates. If that is not in the Government's mind, they need not fear the amendment of my noble friend Lord Windlesham.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said that no one has argued against joined-up services. I believe that everyone who has spoken in the debate--even the noble Lord, Lord Warner--would argue that the Probation Service cannot operate or do its job effectively in isolation. It has to work with the police, the courts and, indeed, with the Prison Service. The noble Lord also said that the joined-up services have a bearing on the issue. The purpose behind the consultation exercise is to ensure that we benefit from having a more joined-up system of inspectorates and to discover how best the inspectorates can work together. We do not seek--and the consultation exercise does not propose--to merge the two inspectorates. The amendment would put that beyond doubt and quieten the anxiety that exists throughout the service.
	I return to the issue of the police. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
	"It is important to recognise that people go from prison into probation supervision, and into supervision in the community. There are similarities and areas of commonality. They are looking at the same client group".--[Official Report, 2/10/00; col. 1204.]
	But they also pass through the hands of the police even before they are put on probation and following probation. The Probation Service works with local authorities, the voluntary sector and health authorities. Therefore, if one took the merger argument to its logical conclusion, one would have a common inspectorate for the police, the Probation Service and the Prison Service. I suggest that that would be a retrograde step. I do not believe that there is an argument for that. If the Government sincerely have no intention to merge the two services, the amendment would be helpful to them and would quiet a great deal of anxiety in the service.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I speak to the amendment from a slightly different point of view from that of my noble friend. I support his amendment strongly. Its object is clearly to prevent the Government doing something that they appear likely to want to do. I certainly do not see this as a party political matter and I do not even see it as a ministerial matter. I see it essentially as a Home Office matter. I shall explain what I mean by that.
	I have studied the Home Office and its workings for some 30 years, originally from inside Whitehall in the early 1970s. I remember how bitterly and successfully it used then to oppose any inquiry or review of how the prisons worked. It was not Home Office style to allow it. I spent some 16 years studying the Home Office as a political journalist and more recently nine years in your Lordships' House. I do not want to be offensive, but in my view the Home Office is the most constipated department in Whitehall. That does not mean that there are not some splendid people in it and always have been; but it is their departmental culture which I criticise. Those magic letters "NIH" might have been invented to describe the Home Office credo. Certainly they are inscribed on the banner under which the Home Office has campaigned--usually with success--to resist any modernisation or changes which have not emerged from its own bowels.
	The methods that the Home Office use were the original inspiration for the brilliant "Yes Minister". The Home Office does not even subscribe to the late Lord Denning's famous dictum. It is perfectly willing to ignore and indeed frustrate a law made by Parliament, if it does not approve of it. Before I make a few remarks about the amendment itself I shall mention an example to justify what I have just said. Under the provisions of Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, the Government were required to set up a national register of all holders of firearm licences. This obligation came into legal force on 1st October 1997. Three years later it is still not there. As the Home Office Select Committee stated in April this year:
	"We are appalled that the national data base is not yet in immediate prospect, over two years after the implementation of the Act".
	I believe that that Select Committee received a rather revealing memorandum from a former police firearms expert explaining the lack of Home Office action. He suggested,
	"it may be significant that ... the proposal--
	that is, the proposal for the register--
	"did not come from the Home Office ... but from Lord Marlesford who forced it to a division at the Report Stage in the House of Lords".
	That is perfectly true and my noble friend Lady Blatch kindly accepted it on behalf of the then government.
	I believe that the case for not allowing the amalgamation of the inspectorate--it is absolutely right to perceive that as the threat--is a simple one. The position of the chief inspector is very much as much as anyone can take on effectively. The best way to reduce its effectiveness is to amalgamate the post with something else. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made that point clearly.
	I give a simple analogy. Back in 1971 I realised that the Post Office telephones needed to be privatised if there was to be the opportunity for the technology revolution to be put into effect. Noble Lords will remember that at that time there was a 12-week waiting list for a telephone in London. I went to see Mr Chattaway, the then Minister of Posts. I suggested to him that the telephones and the mail services should as a first step be split from each other. He was surrounded by his officials who put up a barrage of reasons why such a split would be a national disaster. He accepted their advice. What happened later is history.
	The pronouncements of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons have long been an embarrassment to the Home Office. The wide publication of his views, and the generally extensive and favourable media attention they have received, have been a constant irritation to Home Office officials, who feel that they should have a monopoly in such matters. The fact that Sir David Ramsbotham has been outstandingly successful and shown himself to have the quality and independence of mind which mark him out as a great public servant makes it all the worse. He has been Chief Inspector of Prisons since 1995. If I were the Home Secretary, I should want to persuade him to stay on as long as possible.
	My noble friend Lord Hurd pointed out that the Home Office has its own methods of ridding itself of turbulent priests. But having got rid of an inconvenient individual, it does not want a successor. So it wants to remove the very position and its potential.
	I should have hoped that the Minister would have welcomed the amendment enthusiastically. It is not a party political matter. But if he does not, I shall equally enthusiastically vote in favour of my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, one could not possibly say that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is constipated in any way. Having listened to the contributions from the serried ranks of former Home Office Ministers today, one could never accuse them of constipation. They have been most forthcoming and helpful in the debate. I have enjoyed greatly their helpful contributions.
	I cannot agree to the amendment, as I have been invited to do. During the previous debate, I said that it was the wrong amendment in the wrong place at the wrong time. That remains the case. The amendment prejudges an important debate. We have had a consultation exercise which finishes today, interestingly, about the future of the inspectorates of the Probation Service and of the Prison Service. The amendment is defective because it assumes that the direction-making powers to which it refers relate exclusively to the functions of local area boards of probation, not the functions of the Prison Service. Nothing in the Bill affects the inspectorate of the Prison Service. The Bill and its clauses replicate what we currently have and put those provisions in place for the future.
	We could not use the provisions in the Bill to which noble Lords refer in the way they suggest. The Home Secretary could use the powers to issue directions conferring further functions on the Chief Inspector of Probation set out in Clause 7(6) only in relation to the inspection of those matters described in subsection (1). Subsection (1) covers only the duties of area boards of probation. The Home Secretary could not therefore use these powers of direction in connection with the Prison Service or the inspection of prisons.
	It is worth reminding your Lordships' House that we have not made up our minds on the appointment of a joint chief inspector. Let us make that absolutely clear. I assure noble Lords that we shall consider very carefully all the representations made to us as a result of our consultation exercise. No doubt we shall read carefully today's Hansard as part of that consultation exercise.
	Any decision on the future of the service would have to be announced to Parliament as a matter of policy. We would, of course, want to hold a full parliamentary debate if there were sufficient interest in the matter. Today's debate and deliberations tell us clearly that there is.
	I also reassure noble Lords that we have no intention of weakening the rigour and independence of the inspection process for either service. That would be in no one's interests. We have listened carefully to people's concerns on this point. Strong, authoritative inspectorates working with a clear set of standards help to drive up performance in our public services. That point has been made time and again in the debate. I believe that to be the case. The Government believe that to be the case. We believe and insist that the inspectorate should be independent and robust and offer awkward, sometimes unconventional and irritating views because that awkwardness and irritation help us to shape the service and to ensure that it performs better in the future for the benefit of the public service as a whole.
	I do not see any reason why there should be a suspicion that we are somehow trying to use this consultation exercise to undermine the authority or the independence of the inspectorate. We want to ensure that the Prison Service and the Probation Service work together in a coherent way and that the inspection process supports that measure of coherence. I do not understand the argument which says that the Probation Service inspectorate and the Prison Service inspectorate should be in two completely separate boxes and compartments. They are all part of the criminal justice system; therefore, they need to work closely together. It is how one achieves that objective fairly that is important. I sense from the mood of the House that many of your Lordships view that as very important indeed.
	One-third of those sentenced to custody will spend some part of their sentence under Probation Service supervision. That being the case, it makes perfect sense to have inspectorates which work closely together. The inspectorates understand the issues which arise in the prisons; they need to understand them in the wider community, and vice versa.
	The sentencing review which we have already announced, and which is expected to report next April, is examining sentencing options which could significantly increase that joint sentence to which those who have been convicted will be subject. Important decisions about release, conditions of supervision and custody which directly affect public safety, depend on the two services working together to a clear standard of performance. We rely on inspectorates to ensure that they do.
	We have programmes and resettlement policies backed with sound evidence that they can reduce reoffending. But research also shows that if they are delivered in an inconsistent way as offenders move from custody to supervision in the community, the benefits are largely lost; the chances of reoffending can even rise.
	We recognise that the Prison Service and the Probation Service perform many functions separately from each other. But it is essential that the matters I have described are examined and reported on regularly and to a consistent set of standards as part of the inspection process. That is not happening at present. We need to establish that for the future. We need to look forward to the way in which the service is developed.
	As I have explained, the provisions which noble Lords seek to amend apply only to the Probation Service. We could not use them to direct any matters relating to prisons or the inspection of prisons.
	A number of noble Lords contributed to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that there should be a healthy tension between the two inspectorates. A healthy tension is fine but not a tension which undermines the coherence of which I spoke earlier. Clearly there is much learning to do between the two inspectorates. I think that the noble Lord would accept that point. I think that he would also accept the point that I have made on several occasions now: that some parts of a sentence may be undertaken in prison and some in the community. There needs to be a joint understanding between those parts of the inspectorate to which the sentences relate.
	The noble Lord also referred to the importance of secondments. That is a significant concession on his part. He seems to accept the point I have made: that there needs to be a greater understanding and perhaps a cross-fertilisation between the two services. So perhaps we are moving closer together.
	In his eloquent defence of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said that sometimes we have an attitude of forgetfulness towards prisons, the Prison Service and what goes on within them. He made important reference to the reports of the inspectorates. Sometimes it can be awkward for governments and the Home Office to listen to and take account of them. I believe that this Government have an enviable track record of having listened to the important comments--they are often pressing and critical--made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. Those comments have been helpful to us in focusing on some of the major issues relating to our prisons.
	The noble Lord suggested that this merger was about getting rid of an irritation. It is not about doing that. Why have we extended both inspectors' periods of office for a further year while we considered these matters? We could have taken the easier option of dealing with that issue earlier, but we did not because we have confidence in the way in which they conduct themselves.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that two-thirds of the work of the Probation Service had nothing much to do with the Prison Service. I suggest that one-third represents a significant part of its work. If it is one-third--I was told earlier that it was only 25 per cent or 20 per cent--of its activity, there is a significant cross-over between the work of the two services. I believe that that strengthens the argument for bringing them closer together in some shape or form.
	The noble Baroness made much of links with local government and the health service, but that ignores the central issue that the Probation Service and the Prison Service are part of the criminal justice system, whereas health and local authorities have a much smaller part to play in that area.
	The amendment is unnecessary. It addresses an issue that is not current in the Bill and would prejudge the outcome of an important consultation exercise. We should not legislate in that way. We have not had a fixed view on these issues. We have been open and listened extensively during debates on the future of the inspectorates. It must be right that governments think about and review the way in which inspectorates work. We must look to the future to see which direction they should go in. If the Government failed to do that, they would be failing in the exercise of their responsibilities.
	The amendment is unnecessary and out of place and I urge the House to reject it.

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, we can all agree that this has been a notable debate on a topical issue of public policy. It has gone to the heart of the criminal justice system--if "system" is the right word--and how it is administered.
	It is always unwise in a brief summing up to refer only to one speaker, but I think your Lordships will agree that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was one of the most profound statements on crime and punishment that we have heard in the Chamber for many a long day.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and others paid tribute to Sir David Ramsbotham. I join those tributes unreservedly. There is no need to add to what has been said about the forcefulness and independence of his reports and the skill with which he has presented them to a wider public. As the report of this debate will be read by some of those outside the Chamber in the Prison Service and the Probation Service, I put on record my appreciation, which I am sure that Ministers share, of the long period of distinguished public service given by the Chief Inspector of Probation, Sir Graham Smith, who is well known to some of us in the House.
	It is extraordinary that the two current chief inspectors, who are distinguished public servants, were not consulted about the proposals. Sir David Ramsbotham, in his forthright language, has said that he was frozen out of the discussion on the future organisation of the inspectorates. That is on public record. The fact that both were known to be utterly opposed to the idea of a merger is no reason for their exclusion.
	The Minister seemed to assume that a merger would take place and defended it ably. Viewed in its worst light, the aim of that policy is to get rid of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. But even if we are more magnanimous--I see the Attorney-General nodding and smiling; he wants us to be more magnanimous--it results from a dogmatic attachment to a loosely defined concept of joined-up government. Of course it is desirable to work together in the pursuit of common aims and objectives, such as the reduction of offending and the protection of the public. However, when it comes to translating such generalities into practical working, I suggest that the voices of experience, and dispassionate assessments of future arrangements, should be listened to. We have heard such voices in the House this evening. That is why I wish to press the amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 188; Not-Contents, 120.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 11 [Establishment of the Service]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 6, line 3, leave out ("Children and Family Court Advisory and Support") and insert ("Family Court Child Welfare").

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in moving this amendment, and before I speak to several more in my name, perhaps I may remind the House that I am both a magistrate and a member of the family proceedings court.
	In moving Amendment No. 17, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 31 which effectively concern the same issue. In doing so, it seems almost incumbent on me to quote the immortal phrase, "What's in a name?" Well, my Lords, what is? The acronym for the new service, with which we have all been labouring, is unwieldy and uncomfortable. It is also horribly easy to slip from saying "CAFCASS" into saying "Kafkaesque", a connotation which would be unfortunate in the extreme.
	I am told that magistrates and those working towards the new service believe that, far from enhancing its stature, the acronym will bring it and them into disrepute. The full title of the new service is also cumbersome, even if it is not abbreviated. "Children and family court advisory and support service" is a great mouthful. It is no more descriptive of what is involved than the much simpler "family court child welfare service", which is well understood and respected and which we now propose.
	At least the letters FCCWS cannot be shortened into anything other than FCCWS. I think hardly anyone would want to incur the humiliation of saying the acronym FCCWS. There is much in a name--pride, identification, professionalism. I hope the noble Lords will listen carefully to what has been said by those involved in the new service and spare them forever being members of CAFCASS.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we move into other waters from that of the Probation Service, but whether they are calmer waters or not the next few minutes will tell. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was a magistrate and a member of the family court and speaks with the experience of one who has spent years working in those fields.
	The noble Baroness knows what I am about to say. The amendment would change the name of the service to an existing and very similar one, the family court welfare service. That is one of the services that will go to form CAFCASS. We think that the amendment is retrograde and would be unpopular with those who work in and use the service. The family court welfare service is the name of one of the three services that would integrate into CAFCASS. We think that it would send a negative message to the other services that will become part of CAFCASS. Consultation on setting up the new service showed considerable opposition to the term "welfare". It may be that the noble Lords will feel that to have "welfare" in the title is a mistake.
	I remind noble Lords that this service will be a new one, an amalgamation of three current services--family court welfare, guardians ad litem and the children's division of the Official Solicitor. We think that to name it after one of the three services only would, in effect, devalue the other two. An important argument against changing the name at this stage is that a huge amount of development work has already taken place. The new title and the acronym that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, does not like are well established with future staff and future users of the service.
	Fathers' groups have been extremely critical of the family court welfare service. They would say that their fears that nothing is really changing had been justified if the name of the new service was so close to the current name. We think the new name is appropriate because it reflects what the service will do. It is the name that has been used throughout the consultations that have taken place over 12 months. It is common currency among those who would use the service and those who will be stakeholders in it. We think it is also a descriptive name. It uses a name that indicates what the new service does, and we think that is important. CAFCASS will provide advice and support to children and family courts. It will not just replicate existing services but build on their strengths to provide a better one, more child focused, more flexible and able to offer a better service to the courts.
	It is for those reasons that we invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and allow the name to stand.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply. It seems a pity that names of services or matters to do with anything that is in a Bill going through Parliament should become so set in stone that it is apparently immutable when discussion is still taking place on a matter such as this. The name will be controversial. It is certainly something of which I have heard people say they are deeply unhappy. It is very cumbersome.
	I wish to reflect on what the Minister said about support for the new service. It is a pity that support for the service should be diminished by the unwieldy nature of the title. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 6, line 14, leave out ("13(1)") and insert ("13(2)").

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and speak to Amendments No. 32, 40 and 41 which are all government amendments.
	I start with Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. They will ensure that the scheme that may be devised by the Lord Chancellor under Clause 15(1)--which we shall discuss shortly--falls fully within the definition of "regulations". Amendment Nos. 40 and 41 are concerned with Clause 25 of the Bill. It was felt that this clause was too narrow and would not cover the proposed amendments to which I have referred in Clause 15(1). Principally, this is because the word "regulations" does not appear in the amended text. The amendments, if passed, would ensure that the Lord Chancellor has the power to make regulations under Clause 15.
	Amendment No. 18 will ensure that individuals who perform functions on behalf of the service under Clause 13 are considered officers of the service for the purpose of the Bill or any other enactment. Amendment No. 32 would ensure that the powers conferred on the inspector by the Bill under Clause 17 are fully incorporated into Section 63 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service]:
	[Amendment Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
	Clause 12 [Principal functions of the Service]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments No. 21:
	Page 6, line 26, at end insert ("(whether or not they are exercisable for the purposes of the functions conferred on the Service by subsection (1))").

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21 and speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. These amendments would ensure that CAFCASS would be able to act in all family proceedings under any of the current statutory definitions. The House knows that CAFCASS would bring together the family court welfare service, the guardian ad litem service and the children's division of the Official Solicitor.
	Currently, there is no single statutory definition of the expression "family proceedings" under which the three existing services operate. To ensure that CAFCASS will be able to carry on the work currently undertaken by the three services it is essential that the definition of "family proceedings" in the Bill is comprehensive. These amendments ensure that the definition is comprehensive. CAFCASS would be under a duty and able to act in all proceedings classed as family proceedings under any of the current statutory definitions. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
	Page 6, line 35, after second ("in") insert ("the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of").
	Page 6, line 41, leave out ("that Act)") and insert ("the Children Act 1989)").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Right to conduct litigation and right of audience]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 7, line 21, leave out ("an officer of the Service") and insert ("a suitably qualified lawyer").

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this amendment relates to an area of the Bill which, in Committee, prompted a most detailed and thoughtful debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Following the debate, I received a letter from the Minister, Lord Bassam, and I thank him for his courtesy. I read it with interest, but it probably does not go so far as I hoped. The Minister says in the letter that parliamentary counsel had been asked to find an alternative form or words that would more precisely reflect the current position, limiting to a particular group of officers the powers of CAFCASS to authorise officers of the service to conduct litigation and to have rights of audience. They are identified as those who are qualified litigators, that is to say, lawyers, of which I believe there are three in the Official Solicitor's department and those who work for them, of which there are many more.
	Noble Lords will recall that there were and remain two central issues to the concerns raised by the noble Earl and myself. The first related to a possible confusion which may be caused by the words in Clause 15(1)--"an officer of the Service"--particularly in relation to public law cases where a child has a right to the help and support of a guardian ad litem and a qualified legal representative. The current wording is ambiguous in that regard.
	The second issue is in private law cases--that is, those where arrangements are being made for a child's future, sometimes as a result of matrimonial breakdown or where parents have cohabited, sometimes briefly, and arrangements are being made for future contact or residence with one or other of the parents.
	Sometimes, one parent is almost unknown to the child and there may have been a history of some sort of abuse or trauma to both the child and/or one of the parents. In many cases, the child has an independent interest and a view which must be expressed. It is imperative that the court service should ensure that proper legal advice is provided for such children from a qualified legal professional and not from an officer who, however skilled, has no formal legal training.
	The concerns which the noble Earl and I expressed were that the words,
	"may authorise an officer of the Service",
	to conduct litigation could seriously undermine those two principles. Those concerns are shared by both the Law Society and the National Association of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers. For that reason, I have tabled these two amendments.
	The first amendment seeks to enshrine the principle of legal representation for children in all cases so that where it is mentioned it encompasses both public and private law. Secondly, we seek to secure the principle of the tandem law principle in public law cases. I believe that that is completely accepted by the Government. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, went to a great deal of effort to explain in Committee. However, that could be potentially circumvented if the current wording survives. If my amendment were agreed to, it would underline the very clear assurances given by the Minister in Committee.
	I know that the Minister also has tabled amendments in this regard and I hope that I may have an opportunity to comment on them after he has moved them. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the government amendments are grouped separately from the noble Baroness's amendments. That does not make much sense. Perhaps I may speak now to the government amendments on which the noble Baroness may comment when she responds in relation to her amendments. We are talking about the same issues.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has expressed her argument and for her thanks to my noble friend for his letter. She will recognise, and has done so, that we have moved some considerable way since Committee. We are grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for pointing out the problems which might have existed if we had left Clause 15 as it was. But, of course, we have not done that. Our amendments seek to prescribe the "officers of the service" in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. Those people will be able to act for children.
	I want to make it absolutely clear once again on the record that the Government favour the tandem system in public law cases. We believe that it has worked well and we want it to continue to work well under the new system which CAFCASS will introduce. We are not trying to undermine that in any sense at all.
	However, we seek to protect the role of caseworkers who work for the Official Solicitor. Caseworkers are an integral part of the system operated by the Official Solicitor and they need to continue to be so in CAFCASS if it is to be successful. I have said already and I repeat that we are committed to the tandem model and that commitment will be reflected in the revised rules of court which are out to discussion at present.
	Reference to the tandem model on the face of the Bill, which is the last of the noble Baroness's amendments is inappropriate. The term "tandem model" would need to be clearly defined if it were to stand part of the Bill. That issue would be better dealt with by rules of court.
	It is essential that the current functions performed by caseworkers on behalf of the Official Solicitor can continue to be performed by them in CAFCASS. Caseworkers play a critical role in the Official Solicitor's office. A caseworker in the Official Solicitor's office will take on his or her own cases, under the supervision--that is crucial--of a lawyer.
	Typically, the caseworker will attend a first directions hearings in which the caseworkers will agree the timetable for the proceedings with the judge and the other parties involved. The caseworker will also assist the judge as is necessary. I am given to understand that the role performed by the caseworkers is greatly valued by the members of the judiciary who must deal with those difficult cases.
	CAFCASS must be able to draw on the experience and expertise of these caseworkers if it is to be able to continue to provide the excellent service to the courts that the children's division of the Official Solicitor currently does. Indeed it would be no less than disastrous for the courts and for children and families if they were not.
	The Government recognise the strong feelings on the tandem model form of representation in public law cases, which is why we have given--and I have done so twice this evening--an assurance on our commitment to the continued use of that mode by CAFCASS and our own amendments clarify that.
	I repeat that the purpose of Clause 15 is not to do away with the tandem model of representation in public law cases but to allow those transferring from the Official Solicitor's office to continue to perform the functions that they currently perform.
	I shall speak briefly to the three amendments. We expect that three lawyers and 21 caseworkers will transfer from the Official Solicitor to CAFCASS. The amendments would exclude caseworkers from being authorised by CAFCASS under Clause 15 to continue to undertake the valuable work that they currently perform. We believe that such an exclusion would gravely damage the service's ability to carry on its duties. CAFCASS could not take the same number of cases as the children's division of the Official Solicitor's office currently undertake if it could not continue to use those caseworkers in the same manner as is the Official Solicitor's current practice.
	If caseworkers were not able to continue to perform the valuable role they currently perform, CAFCASS would be less effective. It would not be able to safeguard and promote the welfare of children as effectively as the three existing services currently do. In effect, there would be a reduction in the service currently available. We believe that that would be a grave matter indeed.
	Amendment No. 30 seeks to place on the face of the Bill a duty on CAFCASS to provide representation in accordance with the tandem model in public law cases. I repeat the assurance about the tandem model working well. We intend to cover precisely these matters in the revised Rules of Court. where the tandem model is currently described and dealt with.
	Perhaps I may quote from Rule 4.11(2) of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 which states:
	"The guardian ad litem shall ... (a) appoint a solicitor to represent the child unless such a solicitor has already been appointed, and (b) ... instruct the solicitor representing the child on all matters relevant to the interests of the child, including the possibilities for an appeal, arising in the course of the proceedings".
	The amendments seek to go far beyond the current arrangements by creating a duty in primary legislation which currently exists only in secondary legislation. We do not believe that that is necessary or desirable. Our intention is to amend the rules of court to reflect the creation of the new body, CAFCASS. We are currently discussing these matters with stakeholders, and we intend to retain the tandem model in the revised rules. I cannot say that more clearly.
	We do not believe that the face of the Bill is the appropriate place to deal with these matters. If this amendment were passed, there could be real problems. One problem lies in the fact that a reference is made to the tandem model, but there is no statutory definition of, or reference in primary legislation to, that term. In order to stand part of the Bill such a term should have a watertight statutory definition, otherwise CAFCASS could face a number of difficulties, the main one being not knowing whether it had fully satisfied the duty imposed on it to act in accordance with the tandem model. Those are our reasons for suggesting that the noble Baroness should withdraw her amendments.
	Perhaps I may mention the effects of our three amendments. First, our amendments would allow the current arrangements to be replicated in CAFCASS, with lawyers and caseworkers having the ability to conduct litigation and having rights of audience in all courts. Secondly, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to exercise a significant level of control, through regulations, on those officers of the service that CAFCASS can authorise under Clause 15.
	We looked at the drafting of Clause 15 in Committee and we have amended it. I make it absolutely clear that we do not intend to undermine the tandem model, nor do we want to compel guardians ad litem or family court welfare officers to conduct litigation or to act as advocates. I tell the House that so that it is crystal clear. I know that that is a concern of both organisations. I repeat: we do not intend that they should be compelled to conduct litigation.
	Under our amendments, CAFCASS will be able to authorise only a "prescribed" officer of the service under Clause 15. Previously, CAFCASS would have had an absolute discretion as to which officers of the service it could authorise under the clause. That concerned the noble Baroness, the noble Earl and some organisations outside the House.
	As the noble Baroness will know better than any noble Lords present, it is comparatively rare for children to be separately legally represented in private law cases. It happens, but not in the same way as in public law cases, where the importance of the case to society, as well as to the child, is paramount. In such private law cases where the courts judge that the child should have representation, normally the child would be made a party to the proceedings, as is necessary, and a guardian ad litem would be appointed, in which case the tandem model would immediately come into play, or the case would be referred to the Official Solicitor. Under our proposed amendment, CAFCASS will replicate the service provided by the Official Solicitor, a service which already is highly regarded by the courts and which we seek to preserve.
	In other words--this is the important part of what I have to say on private law cases--there is no question of inexperienced officers, in private law cases or public law cases, being asked to conduct litigation in such cases. Our amendment will ensure that lawyers and experienced caseworkers, who support them and work under the lawyers' guidance, conduct litigation.
	I am conscious that I have spent some time on this, but it is an important matter. I have done my best to provide an answer in a serious manner.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification on Amendment No. 25. Is the Minister concerned that the new powers of the Official Solicitor's office may lead to damage to the general partnership that is current between officers and the Official Solicitor's office? Inadvertently, it may greatly increase the power of the Official Solicitor's office, given that that office will have the power to appoint the officers of the service in the exercise of their functions.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the children's division of the Official Solicitor's office will no longer exist. I suppose that the noble Earl means officers in that capacity at the moment and who will become an important part of CAFCASS. No, I do not believe that it will increase their powers unduly. We shall have to wait and see what happens as we are slightly in the dark. I believe that the House, particularly the noble Earl and the noble Baroness opposite, wanted some reassurance that, first, we shall scrap the tandem model and, secondly, that those who are not lawyers will not be compelled to appear as lawyers, as they are not bound to do currently. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken in relation to these amendments in Committee and today. I fully accept that "the tandem model" should not be on the face of the Bill simply as "the tandem model" because that would not explain it, but I am concerned that the principle of a public law case, where a child has the help of a guardian ad litem allied to a solicitor or a barrister, as the tandem model provides, is, as the Minister has said, not defined anywhere. I believe that we have an excellent opportunity to define it in this Bill so that we have enshrined for evermore the fact that there is a right. I do not for a moment dispute what the Minister has said, that it is in the family proceedings rules, but it is not in law. I do not believe it is difficult to define "the tandem model".
	I fully understand that in his amendments the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has considerably restricted those who would work with children in private law cases. Before Third Reading I shall reflect on whether I should seek to have the words "of a qualified lawyer" inserted, particularly for private law cases because as the Bill stands at the moment the wording is "may appoint" and I believe that it would help if it were clear that priority should be given to ensuring that the child had that full legal representation. I know that in private law it is not always common for a child to need legal support, but it is not unusual; it is not unknown; and it is absolutely essential that there is no misunderstanding that that legal advice should be available.
	I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken in relation to my concerns. I shall withdraw the amendments for the moment. I may or may not return to the matter at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 7, line 21, leave out ("in the exercise of his functions") and insert ("of a prescribed description").

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, can the Minister explain the significance of moving the words,
	"in the exercise of his functions",
	from line 21 to line 25? I know that these amendments have been carefully drafted but I must confess that I have been trying to work out what their significance is; in particular whether it is intended to insert the words,
	"in the exercise of his functions",
	at the end of subsection (1)(b) so that it no longer qualifies subsection (1)(a); or whether the amendment is intended to qualify both paragraphs (a) and (b). I raise a point of detail, but it might be helpful to know whether or not there is an explanation.

Lord Bach: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question. My first thought on it--I shall of course take it away and consider it further--is that it was tabled to cover both subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), which it would do in any event if it stayed where it was in the Bill. My second thought is that the expression, "of a prescribed description", which the Government seek to include, may be thought to go better with the expression "officer of the Service"; and the last expression currently in the first and second lines,
	"in the exercise of his functions",
	was thought to read better if it went at the end of Clause 15(1) rather than in the first part.
	However, perhaps I can consider what the noble and learned Lord said and perhaps write to him with the reasoning behind it.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and am content with what he suggested.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
	Page 7, line 25, leave out ("magistrates' court or county").
	Page 7, line 25, at end insert ("in the exercise of his functions").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 not moved.]
	Clause 17 [Inspection]:
	[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 8, line 25, at end insert ("and for "that subsection" there is substituted "subsection (1) or (2A) above"").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Definitions]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
	Page 8, line 36, leave out ("(other than a chief probation officer)").
	Page 9, line 2, leave out paragraph (b).

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Property]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
	Page 9, line 10, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer").
	Page 9, line 14, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Transfer of staff]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 9, line 29, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").

Lord Bach: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37, I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. These are minor drafting amendments put forward to ensure consistency of wording in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Effect of transfer of chief probation officers]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
	Page 10, line 43, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").
	Page 11, line 13, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Interpretation of Part I]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
	Page 12, line 26, after ("in") insert ("relation to").
	Page 12, line 27, after ("in") insert ("relation to").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Meaning of "offence against a child"]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 60, line 22, at end insert--
	("( ) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 is a minor technical amendment. It arises in this way.
	In another place an amendment was moved by the Opposition Front Bench to increase penalties for child pornography and subsequently your Lordships agreed to that increase. As a result, that offence, which we all treat with great seriousness, became eligible for inclusion in the list of offences to trigger the disqualification order in Part II. The amendment is designed to achieve that and no more; to give effect to the successful opposition amendment which was then approved by your Lordships. With that short explanation, I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I want briefly to take another opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord for the consequential amendment and for accepting this amendment. As he said, this is an amendment which is welcomed throughout the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 61, line 41, at end insert--
	("( ) he commits an offence under section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by--
	(i) supplying or offering to supply a Class A drug to a child,
	(ii) being concerned in the supplying of such a drug to a child, or
	(iii) being concerned in the making to a child of an offer to supply such a drug,").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, grouped with Amendment No. 43 are Amendments Nos. 44 and 61.
	The effect of these amendments is to include in the Schedule 4 list which I mentioned a moment or two ago, the offence of supplying Class A drugs when the supply is made to children. That means that those committing the offence of the supply of Class A drugs, and meeting all the appropriate conditions explained earlier in some detail, stand to be disqualified from working with children.
	There were strong representations in your Lordships' House and elsewhere and we put our minds to the question, which is not entirely straightforward, as to whether or not to include misuse of drugs offences in the list of trigger offences. I am grateful to noble Lords who raised this issue. We paid careful attention to what was said and, rightly or wrongly, the consequence which occurred with the two ungrouped amendments earlier may arise, because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, takes a different view on these matters. However, I am constrained by the groupings. Perhaps I can say, without discourtesy to her group, that she wishes to include cannabis as well; in other words, all controlled drugs, not simply Class A drugs.
	We believe that Class A drugs are different. They have always been treated differently in the law. Sentencing for Class A drug offences is much heavier than for other drugs and we feel that one ought to maintain that clear distinction in seriousness. That is the short basis of our proposal. It is not suitable for me to pre-empt any views the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may have. I simply indicate that she has an alternative approach to this problem. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward these amendments and, secondly, I shall not press my amendments in this regard this evening. I wish only to make two points.
	The noble and learned Lord rightly made a distinction between Class A and Class B drugs, if only to denote the seriousness of the offences. But I happen to be one of those people who believe that supplying drugs of any kind to children is absolutely wrong. Therefore I am sorry that this provision will not include the supply of all drugs to children. Nevertheless I am grateful to the Government for adding this to the list.
	In the letter kindly sent to me and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, mention was made of the Class A drug Ecstasy. The letter said,
	"Ecstasy, also a class A drug, is more difficult, but as we are all aware, it can have lethal consequences".
	I am not sure whether the amendments include or exclude Ecstasy, given that it is a Class A drug. And the Minister is correct in that we all know how lethal it can be. One only needs to think of Leah Betts and the great work being done by her parents to make young people more aware that one Ecstasy pill can take a life. It would be helpful to know, therefore, whether or not it has been excluded. I cannot work it out from the legalese of these two amendments.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the courteous way in which the noble Baroness dealt with this amendment. I am happy to confirm that Ecstasy, being a Class A drug, will form part of the trigger mechanism, essentially for the reasons she indicated. Many think it is different from the hardest of hard drugs. But the noble Baroness is correct in that a single tablet can bring death. In all the circumstances we felt it right to use the band and category description of Class A and keep it intact.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, I am deeply grateful. I shall not oppose the amendment and will not be pressing my amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Third Way Policies

Lord Patten: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will assess their progress to date in the development of policies which are specifically designed to embody the Third Way.
	My Lords, I am glad that we can have a debate like this in the measured atmosphere of your Lordships' House, uniquely in the known constitutional world a self-regulating Chamber. This is one quality of the Third Way approach that I trust the Government do not wish to destroy in the future. That Government are represented tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Falconer of Thoroton, for whom I have a considerable respect. I do not seek to damage him in any way either in this House or in government. Therefore, I would not wish upon him in particular the title "Minister for the Third Way"; it is a cruel and unnatural punishment for anyone to have to bear.
	Having tried to understand what the Third Way is for the past three years, it is my thesis tonight that it is a task impossible, trying to breath life into what three years ago seemed to me to be a sparkling motif of new Labour but today seems to have no political meaning whatever. With one notable recent exception, it is no longer mentioned in ministerial speeches. It is no longer spun, even by spin doctors, which is a sentence of death for any political philosophy in new Labour.
	I believe that three years ago it was represented as a big idea. It is, in any event, always wise to count the political teaspoons when any politician claims new big idea, particularly the Third Way. After all, not many big ideas are given to any one century. There were probably only two big ideas worth that title in the whole of the 20th century. One of them was undoubtedly communism, with its little brother, its younger relative, socialism. The second was their eventual counterpart of socially responsible markets, in movements which began with considerable success in the United States and the UK in the 1980s.
	There I was back in 1997, a new Member of your Lordships' House, absolutely bedazzled by the Third Way hype which existed then and in 1998. The trouble was that I could not see where either the political or philosophical beef was to be found. I thought myself dim for missing the point, so I set out to try to educate myself by asking some Questions of Her Majesty's Government in an attempt to be helpful to others of my colleagues who might also have found the notion somewhat challenging.
	So, for example, on 8th June 1998, the then Lord Privy Seal, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, told me in answer to a parliamentary Question,
	"the third way returns to the values of the left--justice, solidarity, freedom--but we are committed to rethink how we deliver them".--[Official Report, 8/6/98; col. WA 59].
	I thought that I would allow a passage of time to elapse for that rethink--because rethinks take a bit of a while. Two years seemed a reasonable time, so I returned to ask another Question on the nature of the Third Way. It was answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in his characteristically courteous way on 19th June 2000. He stated:
	"The Government in their manifesto promised that 'in each area of policy a new and distinctive approach has been mapped out, one that differs from the old left and the Conservative right'"--
	concluding triumphantly--
	"That is what we have done".--[Official Report, 19/6/00; col. WA 10.]
	I was not wholly clear and thought myself perhaps dimmer than I had previously believed. So being only a little clearer as to what the Third Way meant after that enviable display of masterly insouciance in answering Questions, I thought that I would try one more time by being absolutely specific. I asked the Government whether they would set out three examples of the new and distinctive approach represented by the Third Way.
	A certain amount of time elapsed, but at the end of last week, and just in time for this debate, a further Answer came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. He suggested that all I had to do was to look in the Government's Annual Report for 1999-00 and there would be found examples of the Third Way. I have to tell your Lordships that I did exactly as the noble and learned Lord suggested. I read the Government's Annual Report for 1999-00. It might be interesting to ask how many Members on the Benches opposite have done so. Having done as the noble and learned Lord suggested, I found no examples. The Third Way is not even mentioned in the Government's report for 1999-00.
	So after all those questions, I am back where I was more than two years ago, absolutely none the wiser as to what the Third Way is all about and I regard myself as an innocent victim of circular argument on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I also cast my mind back to when the Jesuits wished condign and savage punishments on me for obstinate refusal to answer questions. I was reminded of that experience all those years ago.
	Thus I was driven to what seemed to me to be the only sane conclusion: that there is nothing in the Third Way; that there is nothing to new Labour's once-vaunted big idea; that it is now an embarrassment to them. Being fair minded to a fault, however, I thought that I might ask our splendid Library for a factual chronology of statements by Government on the Third Way. It responded on 24th October, stating that:
	"Broadly speaking, there has been a decline in the Government's reference to the Third Way ... In 1998, Government speeches and press releases discussed the Third Way ... over the last two years the Third Way has appeared infrequently in discussions of Government policy, except in relation to Europe".
	That is indeed the case. The Prime Minister is a great proponent of the Third Way, but he always goes abroad to talk about it. Your Lordships may remember that a few years ago he went to Singapore to launch the concept of the stakeholder pension. South-East Asia seemed a suitable place to do so. This year, unusually the Prime Minister returned once more to the topic of the Third Way, but he took the precaution of going to Warsaw to make the speech which he felt was important. So I am driven to assume that the Government have themselves reached the conclusion that their idea has no substance and that there is no philosophical core to their new political creed launched in 1997.
	There were some exchanges over the issue between the present Lord Privy Seal and myself during Questions in this Chamber on 25th July. So robust was the exchange that it even got the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Hereford to his feet. He intervened to ask the Lord Privy Seal:
	"Could we press her not for another list of facts and figures but for a succinct expression of the Government's political philosophy".--[Official Report, 25/7/00; col. 275.]
	Needless to say, the House was disappointed.
	That is not to say that there is not much of importance being written by philosophers, political scientists and other serious thinkers on the Third Way. I strongly recommend to the House an article recently written by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who I am delighted has found the time to speak in this short debate. He wrote a marvellous exposition of the Third Way entitled The Third Way and Liberty: an Authoritarian Streak in Europe's New Centre. It is to be found in a 1999 publication of the journal, Foreign Affairs, in which he observes:
	"The term 'Third Way' shows a curious absence of historical awareness among its protagonists--a shortcoming that characterises the Clinton-Blair type of leadership".
	He added in a further sentence:
	"it is not only cynics who have observed that the best definition of the Third Way is whatever Blair actually does".
	In recent years, acolytes of this movement have been falling over themselves to get off the boat and to condemn the vacuity of the Third Way that they once praised. Let us take one example. One of the leading altar boys of new Labour, Mr Will Hutton, having reassessed his views of the Third Way, said accurately on 23rd November 1999 that,
	"The Third Way has bombed before it has even been properly launched".
	Just so, my Lords.
	It seems to me that the concept of the Third Way is an inchoate embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government which should be given a decent burial--unless the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has come here tonight to explain, perhaps after a three-year delay, exactly what it means and whether the Government, having set it out, still support it.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, those who have read the noble Lord's book Things to Come: the Tories in the 21st Century will know that he is no mean political philosopher. We are delighted that this evening he attempts to extend the range of his brain to the Left. Nevertheless, having listened to the noble Lord, he struggles with the concept of the Third Way. As someone who has practised on the Left for rather longer, perhaps I may try to help. The Third Way is nothing more or less than good old social democracy modernised and revised to fit today's conditions. As such, naturally it informs all the Government's policies. Having read the Government's annual report, the excellent progress that they have made is set out very clearly therein.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, all noble Lords should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for telling us about his search for the Holy Grail of the Third Way over the years. We should share with him some commiseration over his failure to secure two clearer sets of answers. I regard rather seriously a great deal of the analysis which has gone into discussion on the Third Way. I read with interest the writings of the patriarch of the Third Way, Professor Anthony Giddens, and some of his acolytes. Professor Giddens is right in his analysis that information technology has a profound effect on the structure of our society. It redistributes power away from central governments and makes it much more difficult for central authorities to administer complex systems. It also makes it much easier for individuals and groups to mobilise and to spring up very fast--almost faster than central administrations can comprehend--and apply additional political pressure to established hierarchies of society. That has profound implications for the future pattern of governance.
	Many people who are involved in the business of governance will have to learn a new language and techniques to prevent e-enabled protests--and often e-enabled violence--having an enormous effect on the entire pattern of globalisation and national and international policy. There is no doubt that there is a new political landscape. To that extent, those who struggled towards something called the Third Way were right to realise that an enormous issue had to be tackled.
	I have difficulty with the label "Third Way". That label belongs to 20th century ideologies which one hoped had been left behind: the Left, the Right and the new way in between. Over and above the fact that it is a very old idea, whose origin is not entirely creditable--many third ways have been tried in the past, some very unpleasant--the real difficulty is that in the past few years the whole debate has been internal to the centre-Left of politics. Those on the Conservative side who are not in the centre-Left look with amazement at the way in which some of the gurus of the Third Way have "discovered" things which have been obvious to them for many years, and were debated 20 or 30 years ago. Suddenly, it has been rediscovered and repackaged as a novel insight and called the Third Way.
	In the 1950s and 1960s Tony Crosland told the Left that it need not go for nationalisation and it could get off the hook by going for the mixed economy. A great many people on the Left thought that that was the way forward. To their horror, they discovered that the mixed economy did not work and a new brand of capitalism and market economics clearly delivered a new pattern of society worldwide, not just in this country. There was a necessity to invent a new envelope to take account of the fact that market economics had to be admitted into the socialist and centre-Left pantheon. It was a very late arrival on the scene. Many of the matters that we on the centre-Right debated 20 years ago have now been rediscovered by the centre-Left, which appears to have slept through the period when we first thought about privatisation and the power of markets.
	One must be generous. It is better that one be saved. The centre-Left has arrived at the reality that we live in a world dominated by markets and that the problem which faces politicians is to match the aspirations and benefits of the global market economy with the fears and worries of individuals and groups. Those outside the centre-Left marvel at the slow process of discovery and how unoriginal a great deal of the Third Way thinking is. It does not carry the debate very much further.
	Another problem with the Third Way school of thought is that it completely underestimates the new nature of global markets. One cannot separate the market system from the social and moral order. A good many people say that that can be done and that markets must be approached with a handkerchief over one's nose and reluctantly adopted. That is the view of parts of the Left and the Third Way school of thought. That is a completely false division. As a result of the internet system in which we live, markets, even more today than was the case in the past, are a generator of social capital and are part of the moral order. We now live in what Bill Gates calls the ultimate global marketplace. There is no choice or any third way between that and the protected sepia-tinted world of Hovis, happy homes and the beer-drinking past. All that has gone.
	Politicians and those involved in public affairs must grapple with the political pressures generated by the global marketplace. Unless they do so, the results will be similar to some of the events in Seattle, Prague, Houston and the City of London where people marched and smashed up computers. Organisations which protest are good and bad, and some we do not see at all. I refer to international criminal fraternities which are organised through internet power and information technology on a vast scale and challenge the power of any national government.
	What do we do about this? We become wiser. Politicians and those who want to see stable governance in society should show a little more humility and lower expectations about what governments can achieve. They should cease to place fancy labels on grand strategies which people know cannot be delivered, and concentrate on the new priorities which people seek across the world to give them a law-abiding, stable and safe society in which they can go about their business and create the wealth which governments cannot create.

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, we owe the noble Lord, Lord Patten, a debt of gratitude for providing us with an opportunity for a little light relief after debates and Divisions in this House on weightier subjects throughout the day. I refer in part to the relatively light weight of the notion of a Third Way. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, indicated, in certain circumstances historically it had more weight, but perhaps history is not the strongest subject of those who in recent years have advocated the Third Way. One also refers to the notion that governments actually apply a philosophy rather than follow the great Harold Macmillan's admonition "Events, my dear boy, events", to which one must respond in a way that stands up to the scrutiny of history.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Patten said, the Third Way is no longer the current fashion. The recent notion is equally light. It is Charles Leadbeater's Living on thin air: a new economy which contains the language of modernisation, the forces of conservatism, and so on.
	The Third Way was never actually a programme. It was intended to be what in post-modern language--not mine really--would be called a narrative. That perhaps is the one serious point I want to make. It is a narrative in the sense that it was intended to provide a big story which pulled together the necessarily varied and diverse strands of the policy of a government. Such big stories are rare. I am not talking about the very big stories of communism and fascism, I am talking about the next level--the national big stories.
	There were two big stories after the war, whatever one feels about them. There was the Attlee story of extended citizenship rights for all and everything that goes with the extension of citizenship rights, not least as a response to the experience of the nation during the war.
	There was the big story which one might call the Thatcher story of rolling back the state, and perhaps curtailing private power within the country in the interest of a more open economy and society.
	If one does not have a narrative of this major kind, one is left with a list of achievements. That is fine. But it marks the different between great governments and good governments. New Labour at a certain point hoped to have such a narrative. Perhaps it was thought that my distinguished, imaginative and entrepreneurial successor as director of the London School of Economics, Anthony Giddens, had provided the language for it. He stated:
	"The third way suggests that it is possible to combine social solidarity with a dynamic economy, and this is a goal contemporary social democrats should strive for".
	The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in a laconic way confirmed that interpretation. That sounds fine, but, in order to become a narrative which pulls things together, it not only requires major deeds to which one can point, but also some intellectual points. There are three. First, a dynamic economy is not just an economy left alone. There are many choices which can and have to be made even in economic policy. The stakeholder idea was not so bad. I was interested in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Howell--"a socially responsible market economy". Those are varieties of economic policy. One of the weaknesses of the Third Way language was always that they simply did not appear.
	Secondly, social solidarity is not just a matter of what nowadays is sometimes called life politics. I am very appreciative of the many things which the Government have done for the third sector, the voluntary sector, in which I am involved. Theirs is a remarkable record. But there are big issues concerning the creation of a public sphere in which people feel at home. It is a public sphere and thus a redefinition of the boundary between public and private. In other words, there are substantive policy issues which if pursued could provide a sense of solidarity.
	Thirdly, there is the missing word "liberty". I have read most of the literature on the Third Way in all the major European languages. It is quite extraordinary that the word "liberty" does not appear, as if it was no longer a problem. I believe that has a relationship with the latent and sometimes manifest authoritarianism of the advocates of this new policy.
	I am a reformer. I feel that there are great problems to be tackled. But I am a reformer whose main concern will forever be liberty under changing conditions. The political economy of liberty is a possible story--social liberalism. I am not excessively fond of that term. It is a liberalism which is aware of social issues. I am not sure that is the narrative which the Government are likely to be able to use.
	Thus all that remains is likely to be a long list of actions by the Government; the kind of thing which the annual report contains. That leads me to the conclusion that this is a good government, but it is not a government with a big story. Everything that has been said about the big story may as well be forgotten. Many may say that that is enough. It may well be. But it is less than the claims we heard a few years ago.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Patten for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. The House will be deeply sympathetic to my noble friend. He has searched high and low--rather like the Cardinal's men after the Pimpernel, bursting open doors only to find the prize whisked away at the last minute--through his judicious use of the written and oral Question.
	The House is also indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who in the seven minutes available flexed his considerable intellectual muscles on this subject. When I heard the succinct description by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, of the Third Way, I felt that the coded message was, "This is a private fight between the old left and the new left. Keep off, it is not your subject". My noble friend Lord Patten's brain should not be exercised too far in the direction of the left. We know that my noble friend's brain is fully capable of encompassing all directions.
	This is an important subject. We are told that the Third Way is the bedrock of the Government's approach to administration. Therefore, particularly as we approach a general election in the not too distant future, a full and proper explanation from the Government of what this core principle is will be necessary for the electorate to evaluate fully the Government's performance against, albeit retrospective, benchmarks. The text of my noble friend's Question invites the Government to assess their progress to date in the development of policies which are specifically designed to embody the Third Way. I am confident that the Minister will do that in his concluding remarks. He will show us the policies and the goals which represent the Third Way and give a self-assessment, as it is known in business circles, of how the Government have progressed towards those goals.
	I agree with previous speakers that at the moment we have precious little to go on as to what exactly the Third Way is. Professor Giddens--the originator of the theory--has written great tomes on this and associated subjects. But in the interviews which I have seen, he has found it very difficult to sum-up concisely what the Third Way is. My noble friend, in all his years of diligence in seeking answers, has not got very far. What we are told could briefly be summarised as "Not what the old left did, but not what the Tories did either". Most telling is that this concept has not yet come to its conclusion--its definition. It seems to be under the category of "work-in-progress". Although the noble and learned Lord faces a very difficult task, that gives him some flexibility in setting his goalposts.
	Therefore, we are left with something of a woolly-minded embodiment of a desire to seek new ways to address new problems. I agree with my noble friend Lord Patten that there is relatively little that is absolutely new in the world. There are certainly new technological developments. The Government have to consider carefully how they react to and address the technological change to which my noble friend Lord Howell referred in his remarks.
	If we are to take the Government's production of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill as an example of how they deal with a new and fast-emerging technological sector, we are in some difficulty. I should like the noble and learned Lord the Minister to explain to the House how he felt that the Government's policy towards such a Bill, which represented the biggest technological issue with which this House has dealt for a very long time, could be considered to have been tackled in a way so very different from the way these matters have been dealt with in the past.
	In short, there is a substantial gulf between the clarity of the principles which have driven the revolutions that we have seen in the past 20 years, with the rollingback of the state, the empowerment of the individual and the development of free market economies in the UK, the US and further afield, and the "things can only get better, but we're not sure how or why" approach of the current Administration.
	Let us consider policies. Perhaps I may ask the Minister about the privatisation of air traffic control, a subject which will be slightly tender to the Government in the light of the consideration of the Transport Bill. That policy was wholly opposed by the party opposite when in opposition. As soon as it came to government, it suddenly decided that a 180 degree U-turn was appropriate and that it was now in favour of the policy. How is the Third Way to be measured against that policy? In what way is it fundamentally different from the consideration of these issues in the past?
	The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying:
	"I believe that politics is first and foremost about ideas. Without a powerful commitment to goals and values, governments are rudderless and ineffective".
	Quite so, my Lords. That would get a substantial "Hear, hear" from most independent commentators. But if the goals in which the Prime Minister and his Government believe, andthe means which they see are best suited to achieve them, are encapsulated in this Third Way, which in turn is a concept so vague as to defy definition, what other conclusion can the House come to than that the Government are driven by expediency and the whim of the focus group?
	Perhaps the central conceit with which we have to deal in consideration of the Third Way is the concept of newness. It reminds one very much of a soap powder being relaunched--"New soap powder! Completely different from all things that went previously. All the soap powders that we have previously launched have been defective products, but look at how we clean your policies whiter than white now". We have to deal with this concept of newness, this disregard of history, this removal and attacking of institutions which have served the country well in the past--from your Lordships' House to the great universities and many other historical institutions. All those institutions have come under attack from the Government in the name of the Third Way.
	The noble and learned Lord the Minister has a substantial task in replying to the debate. We look forward to his remarks. Perhaps the Third Way can be said to encompass the big tent of politics. On that, I shall await the Minister's verdict.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Patten on securing this debate. Like my noble friend, we can speculate why it is that, for all the claims of its adherents that,
	"the third way debate has become a truly world-wide one, affecting all countries",
	its profile has been so lacklustre. All of us therefore anticipate the contribution of the noble and learned Lord the Minister so that the "irreducible core" of these "ideas", the "goals and values" of the Third Way, can finally see the light of day. After all, as my noble friend Lord Goschen pointed out, it is,
	"the abiding philosophy and vision of New Labour".
	As noble Lords have said, it is difficult to know where to begin. But what better source of a definition of the Third Way than the Prime Minister's own words:
	"It is not a dogma of the Old Left, concentrating on means rather than ends. Nor is it the laissez faire of the New Right. Unlike the Old Left, we want a market economy. But unlike the New Right, we do not want a market society".
	So now we know! Obvious, isn't it? Or is it? All this definition really tells us is what it is not, rather than what it is. So the question remains: what is the Third Way?
	Well, the list of those who have tried to define it is copious. For the light relief of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, we can rely on the American humorist, P. J. O'Rourke, who has described its broad philosophy as,
	"a sort of clarion call to whatever".
	Hillary Clinton is another Third Way-er. She has reportedly portrayed it as,
	"a unified field theory of life",
	that will,
	"marry conservatism and liberalism, capitalism and statism, and tie together virtually everything: the way we are, the way we were, the faults of man and the word of God, the end of communism and the beginning of the new millennium".
	Gosh, my Lords! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it is the Third Way, an attempt to give the centre left the status and values of "motherhood and apple pie". But this serves to demonstrate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. Its construction is so ephemeral, so anodyne, that it can be taken to mean--or be--almost whatever anyone wants.
	Even some of the arch-gurus of the new Labour project have got in on the act. My noble friend Lord Patten cited Will Hutton. I cannot resist completing the quotation:
	"The difficulty is that it is inextricably associated with New Labour and thus too readily written off as another vacuous PR stunt. Tony Blair has released a barely read Fabian pamphlet, while Tony Giddens, the director of the LSE, has produced a small book. Both works have been dismissed as purposeless guff; substance-free, New Labour meanderings lacking rigour and whose only purpose is to justify the party's temporising".
	But, to be fair, my Lords, we should measure the Third Way against a practical example. Let us consider the Prime Minister's speech last week on the environment. Simon Jenkins, writing in The Times, commented:
	"Mr Blair is an honest man and clearly did not enjoy this speech. He likes his politics naive and this was complicated. He was soon bemoaning his quandary, that of 'a politician's need to woo the electorate as well as to lead them'. The middle way was a crevasse".
	I do not dispute the analysis of my noble friend Lord Howell but, by attempting to steer a middle course between two competing philosophies, the Third Way risks satisfying neither. In essence, there are two options. Either policy is reduced to favouring one over the other--as with, for example, the legislative output of the Home Office during the current Session, where Jack Straw has seemed vicariously to speak left while acting right and vice versa--or it is forced to sit uncomfortably on a fence between the two. Witness here, for example, the persistent and enduring fudge on transport policy--or even reform of your Lordships' House. The problem is that so much of the Third Way is, by definition, riddled with internal conflict.
	To make matters worse, as the Prime Minister himself has admitted, the whole of the Third Way is "work in progress". Far from being a robust and coherent set of beliefs, or what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, would call a narrative, it has no locus because it is still being formulated. But we can discern something else from the Prime Minister's environmental speech. As Simon Jenkins puts it:
	"His greenery had run slap against his self-confessed 'need to woo the electorate'".
	In other words, the Third Way is little more in some respects than a means of pleasing the voter. As Peter Riddell has observed:
	"Blairism appears as an ideological vacuum, an electoral rather than a governing strategy. Policy is merely a response to polling and presentation, to the need to find 'eye-catching initiatives'".
	Always the code hidden within the Third Way lexicon is about not damaging electoral support. Could this explain why the Chancellor felt the need to pursue his policy of taxation by stealth? What is important, above all else, is not to "scare the electoral horses". We should remember that the project was conceived long before anyone sought or attempted to legitimise it by giving it its Third Way substance. What matters to new Labour, as hinted at by my noble friend Lord Goschen, is the "big tent". Its most potent symbol is the second full term, and it is this, more than anything, that sets Islingtonia's pulses racing. The truth is that the Third Way was stitched to accommodate new Labour's electoral strategy rather than flowing seamlessly from core beliefs. Little wonder that it is so threadbare.
	So what is its place now in the Government's scheme of things? As my noble friend Lord Patten pointed out, the auguries are not good. My noble friend referred to the Prime Minister's speech to the Polish Stock Exchange. Curiously enough, despite having been trailed as a statement of Third Way values, the Prime Minister did not even use the phrase, "the Third Way".
	Indeed, I noted only last week that the call has gone out to the No. 10 policy unit and the coterie of new Labour think tanks to come up with the elusive "big idea" for the party's next manifesto. Could it be that the Third Way has already lost what little lustre it ever had?
	The noble and learned Lord may wish to evoke "the dark forces of conservatism" in response. After all, it is part of the language and the context of the Third Way. But I hope that he--and the Government--will reflect on these wise words from Professor Anthony Giddens:
	"New Labour is widely seen as depending on media-oriented politics, and as creating 'designer socialism'. 'Personal images, symbolic stagings, sound bites, visual gags' all count for more than 'issues, arguments, projects and the evaluation of campaign promises.' A precept of successful advertising, however, is that image alone isn't enough. There must be something solid behind the hype, otherwise the public see through the facade pretty quickly. If all New Labour had to offer were media savvy, its time on the political stage would be short, and its contribution to the revival of social democracy limited".
	How true, my Lords.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may join noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for giving us an opportunity to debate the Third Way. We have had an interesting debate. I should like to single out two or three contributions.
	First, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, with respect, wrestled with the problem that gave rise to the Third Way. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, approached the issue by identifying what were the problems as regards philosophies that had held sway in previous decades. Thirdly, my noble friend Lord Lipsey spoke clearly and succinctly. He provided a complete answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in the Unstarred Question which has given rise to this debate.
	As my starting point I shall take a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Society has changed. I do not believe that anyone would dispute that. The noble Lord referred to globalisation. That has brought with it greater opportunities for the world, but also greater risks and insecurities. Information technology and the growth of what has come to be known as the "knowledge economy" mean that people require greater training, better education and more equipment to face the different world in which we live.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, also referred to the fact that people now have different expectations of their political institutions. They expect greater connection with their political institutions. They expect them to be more responsive and understanding, as well as more connected to the individual needs of each member of the electorate. These changes require politicians to change. The noble Lord explicitly acknowledged that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf--implicitly rather than explicitly--accepted that people are fed up with a polarised debate between the ideological proponents of state control and producer interests on the one hand and, on the other hand, those who are perceived to be too slavish to the market, who deny the value of community-driven solutions and who regard all interventions by the state as evils to be undone, irrespective of the risks that such privatisations may involve.
	A new approach is required; plainly not the old left and plainly not the new right. The noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Dahrendorf, both acknowledged that. However, I must part company with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, because, having stated that a new approach was required, he then declared that the Third Way was nothing new and that the right had been wrestling with such issues for years. Unfortunately, he then failed to reveal to noble Lords the solutions devised by the right.
	We all agree that a new approach is required. I believe that that approach is characterised, first, by the need for a strong and stable economy. We can all agree on that. Secondly, we need to promote social justice. Thirdly, we must recognise that neither the state nor the market has a premium on the correct solution. Fourthly, the successful market economy and social cohesion need to be combined. Lastly, just as the benefits of "community" are recognised, the need for individual responsibility is also accepted. How can I summarise this approach to shorten it sufficiently to meet the question that lies at the heart of what noble Lords have pointed out in their contributions tonight?
	At its heart, the approach requires that a strong economy and social justice make up two sides of the same coin. It requires that the poor, the marginalised and the excluded should all be enabled to enter into civil society as actors rather than as mere passive recipients or as victims. Welfare should be preventive rather than simply ameliorative. People must be given equality of opportunity. Education, training and the opportunity to take up work will bring about that equality of opportunity. What is new about the Third Way and about the approach being taken by the Government is that it combines an acceptance of, on the one hand, the need for a strong economy and, on the other hand, the need for social justice. Those two ideals are not perceived to be in conflict.
	Why is this issue being debated right across the world, not only in Britain and America, but also throughout Europe? It is because the need to combine strong, market-driven economies with the delivery of social justice is acknowledged by this Government. The Third Way seeks to wrestle with that problem. Indeed, all political governments are wrestling with the same problem.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, commented that there was no "big idea" behind this. However, there is a big idea which underlines this; namely, that the old conflict--in which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, still appears to be stuck--is not the conflict that the electorate want us politicians to fight. Electorates throughout Europe, America and, indeed, the rest of the world, seek political arrangements that will produce both strong economies and social justice.
	What examples can be given to illustrate the approach? Plainly, individual policies can be consistent with a whole series of approaches. One must look at a government's work in its totality to see whether what is delivered can be judged to be consistent with the principles I have described. I shall set out some of the combinations which indicate that we are adopting that approach.
	I refer first to the cuts in corporation tax and the introduction of the national minimum wage. Cutting corporation tax stimulates enterprise. Introducing a minimum wage provides social justice. At no stage has the introduction of the minimum wage threatened jobs. Thus a strong economy may be coupled with social justice.
	I refer also to giving the Bank of England its independence on the one hand, which provides a stable economy and moves away from the extremities of the cycle which has characterised previous governments, and developing a programme of welfare to work on the other. In addition I refer to reforming schools to ensure the better provision of state education, but at the same time tough policies on juvenile crime; giving central government greater strategic capacity, and at the same time introducing devolution; more money for health and education, and tight limits on the overall level of government spending. Those are a number of the combinations which indicate that we are approaching the issue in a way which combines a strong economy and social justice.
	A number of points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, in effect, that all the Third Way involves is introducing some aspects of the market economy into policies which previously were not prepared to acceptthe market economy. It is more fundamental than that. It is accepting particular goals which have hitherto been perceived to be at odds with each other when in fact they are not. What better way of providing welfare, for example, than providing jobs? That must be the greatest source for dealing with the problems of unemployed people.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I do not know enough about the detail to deal with that. He also raised the question of the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. That privatisation is a means of ensuring very substantial investment in a service that badly needs it. We did not approach the obtaining of that investment on an ideological basis, but on the basis of what would provide the best service. We believe that the method we propose achieves that. It is accompanied by an independent regulator of the service for the first time.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Minister has produced the thinnest figleaf seen in the House for some considerable time. Can the Minister explain how the approach that the Government have taken towards this privatisation of a fundamental service is any different? It seems to me very much like a "first way" or a "second way"--I am not sure which is which--rather than a Third Way.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point I have been making is that we approach these problems in a way that delivers the best solution overall. There is no ideological commitment to state control; it is simply a way of looking at what will best deliver the solution. That is what the electorate now expect of their government.
	Let me conclude by covering two further points. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said that ultimately we have not, as a government, produced a narrative to provide the big idea. With respect, I think that that is wrong. The approach that we are now taking represents, for the first time, an acceptance of the fact that social justice and a strong economy are complementary and go together.
	Perhaps I may leave your Lordships with this thought. It was amusing to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patten; it was amusing to hear the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen; it was not so amusing, but interesting, to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. But none even began to wrestle with the problem identified by the two speeches to which I have repeatedly referred, nor with the problems with which we, as a government, are trying to wrestle. Although it is, in a sense, easy to refer to particular difficulties, it is far more important that we are engaged on work in progress to achieve the reconciliation--which I believe we can--of social justice and enterprise.

Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.24 to 8.30 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 30 [Sections 28 and 29: supplemental]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Page 14, line 17, leave out ("for a term of 12 months or more").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 to 49.
	We had a short debate on these amendments in Committee. We rather thought that we were going to hear a conclusive argument from the Minister as to why the amendments were not acceptable. I agree with the point made by the Minister in the debate on 4th October about the seriousness of a disqualification order. It does have a serious impact on an offender's life. He said that such an order,
	"should only be imposed where it is seriously justified by the underlying criminal offence".
	I do not disagree with that. He went on to say:
	"It is also essential for the disqualification to be imposed automatically on all serious offenders against children".--[Official Report, 4/10/00; col. 1534.]
	The reason for my amendment is that the order is not automatically imposed on all serious offenders against children. Daily, people appear before the courts for a first offence; but that belies the fact that the person has been abusing children or others sexually for some time--it merely happens to be the first time that the offender has appeared before the court. We know that such people are frequently given sentences of less than 12 months. There is an enormous lacuna. People who are guilty of the kinds of crimes that would qualify for a disqualification order--whether for peddling pornography on the Internet or for committing serious crimes against others--nevertheless escape, simply because they do not receive a custodial sentence of more than 12 months.
	My amendments seek to make it clear that there are offences which are very serious and for which a disqualification order should be imposed on people who receive a sentence of 12 months or less. The amendments have a serious purpose. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am certainly sympathetic to the position that the noble Baroness has adopted. We both want the same conclusion. The real question is: how do we get there?
	This group of amendments seeks to remove the reference to "12 months or more" imprisonment from Clause 30. That means that the court would have to impose a disqualification order on an offender aged 18 or over who was sentenced to prison virtually automatically unless it was satisfied that it was unlikely that the individual would commit any further offence against a child. What we both want is to ensure that an effective scheme to protect children is put in place.
	We came to the view that the virtually automatic imposition of disqualification in a senior court, where the 12 months sentence is imposed, would provide the scheme with coherence and stability. The problem with the noble Baroness's approach is that the courts would not simply be able to impose the order automatically.
	We consulted extensively, and there were at least two alternative approaches. One approach, which has the advantage of simplicity, would have been to draw up a shorter list of offences to trigger disqualification by trying to limit it to those offences which were always in themselves extremely serious--rape, for instance--and not set a minimum penalty as a filter for disqualification.
	That approach has its attractions. However, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness's implied point that such an approach, although simple, is too simplistic. Most people who responded favoured a much wider, comprehensive list of offences but with a year's minimum sentence as the appropriate trigger to ensure proper operation. I think that the majority were right in this instance--although I must say with due deference to the noble Baroness, bearing in mind our recent history and our bruising this evening, that the majority are not always right. They succeed, but they may not be right.
	We should like disqualification to be seen as virtually inevitable when the conditions are met. However, I take the noble Baroness's point. We are, after all, dealing with new legislative sanctions. I entirely accept that, when the scheme has bedded in, we ought to think about revisiting it to see what evidence there is of how it has worked in practice. I give the undertaking--and I hope that this is of comfort to the noble Baroness--that we should want to keep the operation of the scheme under close review. For my own part, I should have thought that after 18 months or two years--not too long, but long enough to obtain empirical evidence--we ought to revisit this matter. I hope that the undertaking I have given is helpful to the noble Baroness. It is certainly intended to be. On that basis, I invite her not to press her amendments.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for a more fulsome and better argued reply than the one we received in Committee. Nevertheless, I remain concerned. There are people who are wholly unsuited to working with children, who receive sentences of less than 12 months, who will be on the loose, and from whom children will be at risk. It is something we ought to think about.
	The noble and learned Lord used the example of an 18 year-old. I should have no compunction whatever in disqualifying an 18 year-old, under all the yardsticks set out in law, if that 18 year-old was an unsuitable person to work with children. If people commit the kind of offences that rule them out from working with children, I believe that disqualification would be in order. I should be depressed by the fact that it was someone aged 18, but I would have no compunction if I thought that a disqualification order would protect children from the behaviour of such a person.
	Another point that makes me slightly hesitant when considering whether to revisit this amendment or a similar proposal is that the Government have not made it known whether they would consider, say, a term of nine months rather than 12 months, so that we get a little closer to catching some of the people whom we regard as unsuitable to work with children.
	I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said about keeping the matter under review and possibly returning to it in a relatively short time--allowing a long enough period to see how this approach is working but in a relatively short time. However, it worries me that we should have to resort to primary legislation to make the change, and that the 12 months' term could not be changed otherwise. I know that in a sense I am arguing against myself in that I take a dim view of using secondary legislation to extend the parameters of sentencing. But it would mean fighting for time to introduce primary legislation. Again, it would be for the courts to decide whether someone was displaying the kind of behaviour that was unacceptable and that would render them a risk in working with children.
	However, the Minister's reply was generous and I thank him for it. I should like to reflect further on what he said. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 50:
	After Clause 32, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:REINSTATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION ORDER
	(" .--(1) This section applies where the Tribunal has directed under the provisions of section 31 that a disqualification order is to cease to have effect in respect of an individual.
	(2) A relevant person may at any time apply to the Tribunal for the reinstatement of the disqualification order.
	(3) An application under subsection (2) may only be granted if the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is likely that the individual will commit a further offence against a child.
	(4) Where the Tribunal reinstates an order under this section, it must state its reasons for doing so and cause those reasons to be included in the record of the proceedings.
	(5) In this section, "relevant person" means--
	(a) the Secretary of State;
	(b) a superintendent of police;
	(c) the director of social services of a local authority.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we now have before us another vexed issue. It relates to the situation where someone has had a disqualification order revoked but where the reinstatement of such an order is required. The tests are quite serious. If a "relevant person"--namely, the Secretary of State, a superintendent of police or the director of social services--believes that someone, who has been the subject of such a order which has been revoked, has subsequently displayed the kind of behaviour that would render him--if it were a primary offence--being made the subject of a disqualification order, then an application should be made for reinstatement of that order. My amendment seeks to secure provision for an application to be made for consideration of reinstatement of a disqualification order in such circumstances.
	I find it quite disturbing that one of the suggestions by the Minister about this was that one should wait for an offence to be committed. That is desperate! The idea that one has to wait for a child to be molested or abused in some way, or for another person to be sexually abused, before anything can be done about reinstatement of an order is quite disturbing. When someone displays the kind of behaviour in respect of which revocation can be considered because he has lived a blameless life and reformed his ways, the argument is that revocation can be considered. However, I have the interests of children in mind. As has been said many times in this Chamber, we all know just how manipulative such people can be. Indeed, paedophiles in particular can be extremely manipulative--they can, for a time, convince all the authorities that life has changed for them and that they no longer pose a risk, but suddenly things can change. It is only right that a chief constable, the Secretary of State and/or the director of social services--all of whom would be very knowledgeable about such matters--should be able to apply to have a disqualification order reinstated.
	I do not believe that there is any argument against the terms of my amendment. I have read most carefully what was said on the previous occasion. I have also read very carefully the letters that have been sent to me in the intervening weeks. I simply find it unarguable. If a person made the subject of a disqualification order in the first place has had that order revoked (because he has displayedthe kind of behaviour that would qualify him for revocation) but subsequently displays the kind of behaviour that causes real concern that he may be a risk to children, there ought to be a mechanism, with all the process in place, through which an application could be made by responsible people, as set out in the amendment, to have reinstatement considered. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her explanation of the amendment. As she clearly said, this would allow a disqualification order, which has been removed by a tribunal, to be reinstated, subject to the filter set out in the amendment. I certainly understand the noble Baroness's concerns. I believe that I have already declared my interest here as a former trustee of the NSPCC. I also chaired the commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse, which the society established.
	We have sought to strike an extremely important balance. It is worth bearing that in mind. As we have drafted matters at present, the tribunal will only be able to lift a disqualification if it is positively satisfied that the affected person,
	"is suitable to work with children".
	That is a very high threshold. The noble Baroness said that this should be an authoritative and responsible tribunal. Perhaps I may emphasise the fact that that is a very high hurdle. Indeed, it seems to me that very few tribunals would be content to come to a conclusion on those bases without the most positive, affirmative material. Of course, like many of us, members of a tribunal would be familiar with what the noble Baroness rightly described as the notoriously "manipulative" behaviour of many paedophiles. One reaches the stages where the lifting of the order can only occur on positive satisfaction that the person is suitable to work with children. I trespass slightly here into the next group of amendments, but there are also the time filters to consider for five and 10 years respectively.
	We have considered the alternative approach. Obviously no one can listen to the concerns that have been expressed without reconsidering the situation. I understand the noble Baroness's reasons and motives, but I believe that we have got the balance right. It would be a very rare circumstance where the dangers about which the noble Baroness has spoken would arise. After all, a further criminal offence--I recognise her point on this, which is a good one--would trigger a disqualification order. However, there are other safeguards: if the individual in question were a sexoffender he or she could be prevented from undertaking the relevant work by a sex offender order. Of course, the person's criminal record remains and is, therefore, available in appropriate circumstances for scrutiny.
	I return to the approach that I mentioned earlier. When one looks at Schedule 4, one can see that it represents a very wide range. I believe that we have got the balance of protection right. However, I stress that no one is capable of coming to perfect conclusions in this very difficult area. We will need to keep it under regular review. Once again, I hope that that response is helpful; indeed, it was meant to be so.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's response was partly helpful, but no more than that. At paragraph 53 of the portmanteau letter sent to me by the Minister, the noble Lord, not surprisingly, uses almost the same words as those just used by the noble and learned Lord. The noble Lord says:
	"The Government are faced with a choice of options. As drafted at present, the Tribunal can only lift a disqualification order if it is positively satisfied that a person is suitable to work with children".
	I understand that there is no appeal against this. If the tribunal comes to the wrong view and decides that someoneshould have a disqualification order lifted, that is the end of the matter and it is lifted. I have in mind the fact that members of a tribunal are not infallible: they can make mistakes. If that person goes on to display the kind of behaviour that presents a risk to other people, it seems to me that there ought to be some way through the judicial process to apply for reinstatement of the order. Such a matter would be in the hands of very responsible people, as set out in my amendment, and the tribunal would also have to take a view based on the evidence put before it.
	However, in paragraph 54 of the Minister's letter, there is the most depressing sentence:
	"This difference has a crucial impact on the process by which the Tribunal could reinstate the disqualification. In our view, this would represent a new disqualification".
	So what? If it were merited, that would not be a problem; indeed, one would not need to apologise for it. In other words, such an order should only be made if the person re-offends. That is very cold comfort for the victim, or for those who are concerned about young people being offended against in this way. In the interests of protecting children, I really believe that the Government should reflect on the issue. I hope that they will do so. Icertainly intend to return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 33 [Conditions for application under section 32]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 16, line 18, leave out ("he is released") and insert ("the sentence passed on him expires").

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in this amendment we return to a matter that we tried to discuss in Committee; namely, the date at which the person who has been made the subject of a disqualification order can apply to have it reviewed. Under the terms of the Bill, this can take place under Clause 33(3)(a) after five years from the date of release from custody, or the date that the disqualification order was made, if the offender is under 18 years of age, and after 10 years if the person is over 18.
	The amendment proposes that the date when application for review can be made should be five or 10 years respectively from when the sentence passed expires. We all know, especially as regards custodial sentences, that the term served is considerably less than the sentence imposed. In our previous discussions on the matter the Minister was at pains to explain that consideration should be given by the tribunal to the time that a disqualified person had been free, under supervision, in the community as part of his sentence, even though that time was well within the terms of the sentence. However, that time would inevitably be spent either on licence or under probationary supervision and as a result may well not accurately reflect the true nature of the person concerned.
	As the Minister said on the previous occasion we discussed the matter--a statement with which I concur--the whole purpose of a disqualification order is to protect children. Rehabilitation of the offender may indeed be a purpose but under these circumstances it cannot be the primary requirement; the safety of children is. Therefore we believe that no abdication should be made until five or, respectively, 10 years after the sentence expires, following which, of course, the tribunal would still have to be satisfied--as we have discussed under a previous amendment--that the disqualified person had fully demonstrated he was no longer a danger to children. The purpose of the amendment is to change those timescales. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the moderate way in which this amendment has been moved. At the risk of tedium I return to the rigorous nature of the two-stage process. As noble Lords know, first an offender must have leave from the tribunal to apply for review of the disqualification order. That is extremely important. It is a critical threshold to be overcome. That leave can be given only if the tribunal is satisfied that the individual's circumstances have changed sufficiently during the period in question to justify even reconsideration of the disqualification. The offender needs to get beyond that stage and still has positively to demonstrate suitability to work with children. If the tribunal is not so satisfied, it must dismiss the application. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the date we are talking about is the date at which the individual can first approach the tribunal; that is, 10 years and five years respectively. Therefore, first he has to obtain leave and then he has to demonstrate that he is positively suitable to work with children.
	One of the difficulties we have encountered is that it is really the record in the community that matters, not what happens in prison. Again I think that we all in this House are uneasy in the knowledge that quite a lot of sex offenders are exemplary prisoners. That is one of the curiosities of the prison system. It is the record in the community that ought to matter, not what they did in prison.
	There is one aspect that I need to draw to noble Lords' attention. It is not fundamental in what I suggest. The measure would mean that those who had received a life sentence--those eligible for life sentences can vary infinitely--would never be eligible to make the application we are discussing. Therefore I do not think that the spirit of our approach is entirely different. I think that the leave, the 10-year period and the strict onus constitute proportionate protection in these circumstances.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall consider it carefully. I say only what is blatantly obvious; namely, that the people we are concerned about here are likely to be among the most serious offenders within the criminal justice system. To give way at any stage or to give any leeway does not seem either helpful or positive in terms of the protection of the children whom we seek to protect. The amendment would impose a statutory period at which the application for revocation could be made rather than--if I can put it this way--a "wobbly" time as everyone is released at different stages and spends a different amount of time in the community depending on the length of their sentence. As I say, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I shall consider it further and perhaps return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 34 [Persons disqualified from working with children: offences]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 16, line 46, at end insert ("or performs on a casual basis (whether for financial reward or not) any functions which would constitute work in a regulated position").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I seek here is clarification--dot and comma, as it were--of the answers that we received in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
	"The definitions in Clause 37--
	that is now Clause 34--
	"cover work of any kind, whether paid or unpaid. Any casual work that falls within the regulated positions defined in Clause 34 will be covered. I hopethat the noble Baroness will accept my assurance".--[Official Report, 4/10/00; col. 1542.]
	I need to be convinced by references to the actual words that achieve that. We are concerned about people, both paid and unpaid, but in particular unpaid people, who work part-time with young people in a voluntary capacity, perhaps even in an honorary position. Often those peripatetic people are more worrying in terms of possible risk to children.
	The Minister further said at col. 1542:
	"The current definition will catch any casual worker who comes into regular contact with children".
	I have read and reread the clause which is supposed to explain everything but I am not yet totally convinced about the matter. If the Government are right and anyone in a paid or unpaid position, voluntary, regular or irregular, who comes in contact with children on a regular basis and gives cause for concern is caught by the measures of the Bill, I shall rest assured. However, the reply I was given on 4th October did not do that. I look to the noble and learned Lord to put that right. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness's request is a perfectly reasonable one. I invite her to look at page 21 of the Bill. Clause 39 is headed "General". I hope that I can give her the answer she seeks. Line 25 of page 21 states:
	"'work' includes--
	(a) work of any kind, whether paid or unpaid and whether under a contract of service or apprenticeship, under a contract for services, or otherwise than under a contract ... and 'works' is to be read accordingly".
	Clause 34(1) states at page 16:
	"An individual who is disqualified from working with children".
	We need to read Clauses 34 and 39 together. It seems to me that the work definition in Clause 39 is wide enough, apt enough and appropriate enough to meet the noble Baroness's concerns. I hope that my answer has been of assistance and that it is a helpful answer to the question that she most reasonably put.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am certainly more reassured than I was. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord can clarify whether this would include, for example, someone who is brought in temporarily by a scout leader to work with scouts or someone who is brought into a classroom temporarily, not necessarily contracted. Many parents and third parties enter classrooms to help. They are not contracted but they are nevertheless in direct contact with children. They are not in loco parentis, as the teacher, the teacher's assistant or someone under a contract of service or apprenticeship would be--
	"or otherwise than under a contract".
	Do the words,
	"otherwise than under a contract"
	subsume the kind of casual contact that a particular person would have with children in those circumstances?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords. That is why work has been defined so widely. Clause 39(1) states:
	"'work' includes--
	(a) work of any kind, whether paid or unpaid and whether under a contract of service or apprenticeship, under a contract for services, or otherwise than under a contract".
	Therefore the casual volunteer, for example, looking after children in an adventure playground on a regular basis, perhaps once or twice a week, or even intermittently, would be covered. That is why we have drawn the definition of work as widely as we possibly can.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful. I am reassured on that point. I do not know whether it is possible to have a cross-reference between Clause 34 and the line on page 21. However, even if that were not possible, I now know that under the law my concerns would be covered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 35 [Disqualification in Scotland or Northern Ireland]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 18, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert--
	("( ) member of a relevant local government body,").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 54 to 58, 62 and 63 are grouped with the amendment.
	These are minor amendments which add to the definition of "working with children" in Part II of the Bill. The two sets of amendments are additions or changes to Clause 35. It sets out the new definition of working with children from which disqualified persons are banned. These amendments add to or alter Clause 35(6). We have tried to include positions where there is a particular position of trust and respect, where the holders of those positions may have the right to go into, for example, schools or voluntary groups without supervision as a consequential privilege of that position. The children and parents may well look up to them and respect them as "safe" members of the establishment.
	We have sought, therefore, to expand the list in the context of children's services. There is one exception which noble Lords will have seen which relates to "directors of social services". We came to the conclusion that children are only a part of their responsibility but it is a central, critical role. The possibility of abuse or cover up where things go wrong is very great.
	We have therefore added to the list members of the Youth Justice Board and the children's commissioner and deputy children's commissioner for Wales. Those all fall within the boundaries that we have been discussing.
	The second set of amendments is a little more complex. We spoke earlier about social services and educational functions within local government. The question was raised whether the existing definition went sufficiently far. It was a fair question. We came to the conclusion that we should widen the definitions and categories in order to meet the legitimate concerns that have been raised on earlier occasions. With that explanation, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 58:
	Page 18, line 35, at end insert--
	("( ) member of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales,
	( ) Children's Commissioner for Wales or deputy Children's Commissioner for Wales,").
	Page 18, line 37, at end insert--
	("(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6) a person is a member of a relevant local government body if--
	(a) he is a member of, or of an executive of, a local authority and discharges any education functions, or social services functions, of a local authority,
	(b) he is a member of an executive of a local authority which discharges any such functions,
	(c) he is a member of--
	(i) a committee of an executive of a local authority, or
	(ii) an area committee, or any other committee, of a local authority,
	which discharges any such functions.").
	Page 19, line 3, at end insert--
	("( ) Any reference in subsection (6A) to a committee includes a reference to any sub-committee which discharges any functions of that committee.").
	Page 19, line 28, after ("section") insert--
	(""area committee" has the same meaning as in section 18 of the Local Government Act 2000,").
	Page 19, line 29, at end insert--
	(""education functions", in relation to a local authority, means any functions with respect to education which are conferred on the authority in its capacity as a local education authority,
	"executive", in relation to a local authority, has the same meaning as in Part II of the Local Government Act 2000,
	"social services functions", in relation to a local authority, has the same meaning as in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 59 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 59A:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--
	(" . After section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be inserted--
	"Use of electronic communications systems to procure acts of gross indecency with children.
	1A.--(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, "child" means a person under the age of sixteen years.
	(2) Any person who uses an electronic communications system, including (but not limited to) computers, computer networks, computer bulletin boards and newsgroups, computer chatrooms, the internet, and other analogous electronic means, for the purposes of--
	(a) engaging in an act of gross indecency with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child;
	(b) engaging in a sexually explicit discussion with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child; or
	(c) soliciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to engage in any act that would constitute an offence under section 1 or under section 2(a) or (b),is guilty of an offence and shall be liable--
	(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both; or
	(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
	(3) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
	(4) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have two regrets in coming to the Dispatch Box. First, as regards the reprinting of the amendment, that was not my fault. When I re-presented the amendment I was conscious of the ridicule I suffered because of my reference to using technology for sexual purposes. I changed the wording to using an electronic communications system to procure acts of gross indecency with children. The amendment had to be rewritten. I apologise for that. Secondly, I am sorry that there are not more noble Lords in the House to take note of the importance of the amendment.
	The issue has been brought home recently in a most poignant case where someone unashamedly used technology in order to procure the sexual services of a young girl. That person has been dealt with by the courts. However, I shall refer to a number of occasions when the police have had difficulty. The law is not as strong as it should be to catch people who have an evil intent in using technology.
	I have had correspondence with an organisation called Childnet International which is doing us a great service. It has set up a website called chatdanger.com to advise parents and teenagers about the dangers to which children are subject when using the Internet. The vigilance of one or two parents brought this issue very much to light and gave rise to some of the recent public comment. I strongly share the concern of Childnet International. It is not convinced by the Home Office response on existing legislation. It is unconvincing. The Home Office says that there is legislation in place and that it should suffice. It simply is not the case.
	The Home Office argues that the Indecency with Children Act 1960 is adequate to deal with online enticement. It is not. The language of my proposed amendment may not be perfect. I shall be told if that is the case. There is the problem of an online counsellor having a sexually explicit conversation with a child being caught by subsection (2)(b) of the amendment. There are good reasons for being concerned about the current situation.
	I give three examples the organisation has cited. First, I refer to the so-called Milton Keynes case where a 47 year-old man from Durham travelled to Milton Keynes to meet a 14 year-old girl. He said that he was 18. He had cultivated a relationship online with this young girl called Georgie. It included requesting her to send nude pictures of herself. Thankfully, her mother went with the young girl to meet this man and intervened. She reported the incident to the police but they did not bring charges. They claimed lack of evidence. But in the light of the e-mail that this man had sent, we wonder why he was not charged under the Act which the Home Office says is adequate.
	The second example relates to Patrick Green. Childnet International worked with the parents of the victim. The police were concerned that they might not be able to bring charges. It was only when they found DNA evidence in Green's flat that they were able to bring charges in relation to the offline sexual offences of sexual intercourse with a minor to which he pleaded guilty.
	The police tried charging him with abduction but he pleaded not guilty and the police did not press that case. It would have been helpful to have had additional offences, such as those in my amendment. Green sentobscene photographs to his victim as well as sexually explicit e-mails. It should have been possible to use the Act but it is inadequate.
	The third example also concerns Patrick Green, who sought to meet a 14 year-old girl from Cumbria while he was on bail. The police learnt about this from colleagues at work, who discovered disturbing e-mails on his work computer. The police had already confiscated his home computer. The police arrested him red-handed when he was picking up the girl from a railway station. He had prepared a hotel room for them to go back to. The police again tried charges of abduction, but they were not pressed when Green pleaded not guilty. No charges were brought, even though he travelled more than 200 miles to meet the girl with clear sexual intent.
	Those examples show that the law is not strong enough. The Government would be crazy not to take this opportunity to strengthen the law. The amendment would go a long way towards doing so.
	We have to ask why the police did not bring conspiracy charges in those cases. None of us knows. Could it be lack of police training and awareness of the possible charges, or is the evidential test too high? We need to know why the provisions are not being used. Whatever the answer, there is a clear case for strengthening the law. I strongly implore the Minister to consider the amendment for the sake of parents, who are now extremely concerned. We have a strange situation in which many parents are not conversant with the technology. Their young people may be in other rooms in the house where they could be downloading such information and establishing relationships with people whom they falsely believe to be somebody they are not and may then find themselves entrapped for the evil purpose of sex. In the interests of children, I hope that the Minister will be positive and accept the amendment or promise to bring forward one that would achieve the same end. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the present law. It already applies online as it does offline. Conspiracy, incitement or attempts to commit gross indecency with a child under 14 are already offences under the Indecency with Children Act 1960, regardless of whether they are done over the Internet. They carry a significant penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment.
	One problem with the amendment--I am not making a drafting point; I agree that the issue is much too important for that--is that it refers to,
	"engaging in a sexually explicit discussion with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child".
	That would criminalise activities such as sexual chat between adolescents and even medical advice online. It would also rightly criminalise--I draw that distinction--the misuse of the Internet by paedophiles to contact children. That is the harmful, wicked activity that the amendment is aimed at. "Sexually explicit discussion" is not an adequate description of the criminal conduct.
	Sanctions are available. The noble Baroness mentioned conspiracy. I am not in a position to comment on what police decisions were made. Bearing in mind the date of one of the convictions and sentences, I ought not to do so anyway. If the noble Baroness writes to me, I shall take up the issue with the Crown Prosecution Service to see what explanation is available. I do not know the answer and it would be wrong of me to guess.
	The noble Baroness mentioned the case of a 12 year-old who was sexually abused. As she rightly said, the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse was committed and the offender was sentenced to five years in prison, so imprisonment as a sanction followed in that case.
	One problem, as the noble Baroness pointed out, is that children may be in another room downloading material that is grossly offensive to any rational mind. The amendment would not catch that, although it is arguable that in some circumstances the mischief is just as great.
	We have been waiting for the report of the Internet relay chat sub-group. It was put on an Internet site this morning. I shall provide a copy for the noble Baroness, because it contains some useful and thoughtful material about how to deal with the issue. A legal sanction will not always be the most effective. I am more than happy to discuss that briefing paper, which was only posted this morning, if she thinks that that is helpful.
	We need to work out a definition of "criminal activity" that does not cover the exploratory discussions of adolescents or legitimate medical advice. There are significant problems of definition. This is not the usual ministerial pap along the lines of, "You've got the drafting wrong"--I hasten to add that I do not have any particular ministerial colleague in mind! I do not believe that it is simply a drafting difficulty; it is genuinely a difficulty of describing a criminal activity without criminalising those whom one does not intend to criminalise.
	I shall provide a copy of the report to the noble Baroness and I am more than happy to discuss any possible improvement by way of an amendment. However, I have an uneasy feeling that we shall not be able to find a satisfactory definition, although I am certainly willing to make the effort.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find that answer disappointing. If we had passed all the tests and scored highly on the Richter scale for producing well crafted legislation which was without fault, meant what it said and was accurate in every dot and comma, I would accept what the noble and learned Lord said. However, we have been privy to passing in both Houses legislation which is inadequate in terms of the quality of its drafting. I believe that this year in particular we have probably seen the greatest quantity of poorly drafted legislation. Therefore, I do not regard poor drafting as a reason for not accepting an amendment.
	I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord was saying that the proposal behind the amendment should not be accepted. However, the message that I have from him is that it will not be accepted in this Bill because it is too difficult, because people are still meeting, because other people have interesting things to say, and perhaps we should mull the matter over and contemplate what other committees have to say on the matter.
	If paragraph (b) of the amendment has the side effect of catching someone who legitimately gives medical advice to a young person or, sadly, of catching two young people who are having an unsavoury sexual discussion over the Internet, then I accept the criticism. However, my amendment seeks to deal with people who indulge in that activity with the intention of deceiving young people and of procuring the advances, the interest and the attraction of young people. Only when they meet physically does the young person realise that he has made a terrible mistake or, worse, that he is entrapped in a situation which could even lead to his death.
	The Minister referred to a case of sexual intercourse with a young girl which led to a charge being made. Eventually the perpetrator was dealt with in the courts. Of course, that person would have been dealt with in the courts whether or not he had used technology to bring about the situation. My amendment seeks to make it a crime for anyone to use technology--the network of the Internet--in order to bring about such a situation. The intention of bringing about such a situation should be a crime in itself. Therefore, I do not regard what the Minister said in relation to that case as being a reason for not accepting the amendment.
	I hope that I do not have to write to the noble and learned Lord to ask him to look into this matter. I hope that he will accept that this debate is sufficient evidence of my concern. I speak for many people outside the Chamber who are equally concerned and would like the noble and learned Lord to investigate why the police are not using the relevant section of the Act. As I asked earlier: is it because the test is too high? Our lawyers should be able to answer that question, even if we do not go to the police. Where a conviction was secured, it was because DNA evidence was found in the flat of the person concerned. Technology had been used quite ruthlessly to secure the attention of the young person, but it was only by sheer luck that the guilty person was caught and taken to task through the courts.
	The noble and learned Lord has not given a satisfactory answer. Indeed, I am deeply unhappy that the main message that I take from him is that we shall not see a change in the Bill. I believe that, when the House is more full and more people are able to listen to the arguments, there will be much sympathy for taking action, even if that action is not perfect. The law as it stands is anything but perfect. It falls short of protecting our children properly. I believe that between now and Third Reading we should attempt to produce an amendment which is acceptable and which will offer some comfort to the parents of our children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 60:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause--
	INDECENT CONDUCT TOWARDS CHILDREN
	(" . For section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be substituted--
	"Indecent conduct towards children.
	1.--(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, "child" means a person under the age of sixteen years.
	(2) Any person who--
	(a) knowingly commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child, or who incites a child to commit such an act with that person, or with another;
	(b) travels with the intent of committing any act of gross indecency with or towards a child;
	(c) knowingly employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, an act of gross indecency with or towards any child; or
	(d) transports a child with the intent that that child engage in an act of gross indecency,
	is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.
	(3) Any person who--
	(a) abducts, detains or otherwise restricts the liberty of a child for the purpose of sexually exploiting that child; or
	(b) organises or knowingly facilitates such abduction, detention or restriction,
	is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years, or to a fine, or to both.
	(4) Any parent, guardian or other person having for the time being custody or control of a child who knowingly permits that child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexual activity, or who knowingly permits the sexual exploitation of that child, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.
	(5) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
	(6) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).".").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may be so presumptuous as to jump to a conclusion as to what the noble and learned Lord may say, I suspect that I shall probably receive the same type of answer from him in relation to this amendment as I did in relation to the previous one.
	This amendment relates to a subject which also causes us great concern. It deals with a person who,
	"knowingly commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child, or who incites a child to commit such an act with that person, or with another; ... travels with the intent of committing any act of gross indecency with or towards a child; ... knowingly employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, an act of gross indecency with or towards any child; or ... transports a child with the intent that that child engage in an act of gross indecency, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both".
	I understand that in America this is seen as an offence. It is dealt with by the courts. The person found guilty of any one of these activities can be dealt with by the courts.
	Abduction is a very serious offence. We all know, and are painfully aware of, little Sarah Payne, who was abducted in the first instance before she met her cruel end. Just occasionally that kind of person is intercepted and the child's life is saved. That should be seen as an abduction that both restricts the child's liberty and is for the purposes of sexually exploiting the child. It is possible by policing methods to find out whether a person is organising or knowingly facilitating such an abduction, detention or restriction and whether that person is guilty of the offence of any of the activities I have enumerated today.
	I hope that the noble Lord will see that this is a very real issue, that there ought to be an offence in these matters and it ought to be properly dealt with by the courts. Certainly, as the law stands, it is not strong enough. It is my view that it ought to be strengthened. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, clearly there is a mischief here. It is my recollection that that mischief is dealt with by the Abduction Act 1489. I have not been able to check whether that Act is still in force, but were the Minister able to do so before the next stage I would be extremely grateful.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Certainly I shall, my Lords. I have ample time in which to do these tasks. Abduction remains an offence. Kidnapping is an offence if it is associated with murder. Commonly, it will not be charged as a separate offence--sometimes it is--because the penalty for murder is mandatory life imprisonment, which I, for one, support.
	One of the problems in the area of sexual offences is that the law is extremely unsatisfactory and confused. I remember the notable advice given by the Lord Chief Justice recently that we need, above all, in the criminal law clarity, coherence and understandability. That was why the sex offences review was set up. The recommendations to the Government were published in July 2000. The document is called Setting the Boundaries. The recommendations are in Volume 1 and the supporting evidence in Volume 2. The consultation period closes on 1st March 2001.
	The point of the review is to get clear, coherent offences that are understandable and which can be prosecuted successfully. There are few things worse than criminal law that does not work. That does an awful amount of harm, not least to victims, complainants and their parents. The purpose of the review was to protect individuals,particularly children and other more vulnerable people, from abuse and exploitation and to enable abusers to be appropriately punished. The review has looked at all sex offences. The protection of children has been the central theme. The point is to get a coherent package of measures to protect all victims of sexual violation, particularly children and other vulnerable persons.
	It has been a very extensive consultation. My own department has been involved, as have the Bar Council, the Law Society, the NSPCC, Victim Support and the former Chaplain to the Speaker. The advisory group represented a wide range of pressure groups, faith groups and other interests, including Rape Crisis and victims groups in addition to many others. If we have such a review, which has been long overdue, we really should see whether we cannot achieve coherence, consistency and appropriate sanctions in the law of sexual offences.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will not say that that is a disappointing reply because it is intended to be constructive and to deal with a basis which is longer term than merely this year or next. We really need to achieve clarity and coherence in this area of the law.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble and learned Lord but I find his reply disappointing. Parliamentary time has been found, without waiting for the outcome of the sexual offences review, to lower the age of consent for homosexuals and even worse, to lower the age for buggery in relation to girls aged 16. Why has parliamentary time been found to bring in those measures and yet we cannot apply ourselves to do something about the sort of crimes we read about every day in our newspapers? There is great wringing of hands; statements are made; conferences are convened, but nothing is done.
	I have seen the report to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Many of its recommendations could be implemented very quickly. A great deal of thought has gone into the matter but it is taking an insufferably long time for anything to be done about it. The sexual offences review was initiated when I was a Minister at the Home Office. Now, here we are, almost four years later, and the review has not formally reported, nor has it yet given rise to any draft measures for consideration.
	I return to the letter which was sent to me by the Minister. It states, in relation to the scheme which has already been set up in the Bill, that,
	"once it is up and running and operating well in practice, we could, if we thought it right, revisit it in future legislation to extend it further".
	What future legislation? We have a Bill before us now in which it is possible to address some of the very real and urgent issues which have arisen out of the death of little Sarah Payne and cases of Internet procurement for sex.
	But then the Minister goes on to say in his letter:
	"but to do so from the start would, in my view, weaken and complicate the measures".
	It certainly would not weaken them. It may make them more complicated but as the noble and learned Lord has said, such legislation is complicated. That should not be an argument for putting off the day to address it.
	I believe that we should get on with this. This is a golden opportunity. We shall have a Queen's Speech in a very short space of time. I know that the noble and learned Lord is not allowed to say what is in it. However, it seems that other Ministers are allowed to say what measures will be brought forward. I understand that some draft Bills likely to be included in the Queen's Speech are already in public circulation. If the noble and learned Lord was able to break all the rules of convention and say that there will indeed be a Bill to deal with these matters in the coming Session of Parliament, then that would go some way towards relieving my fears. I am afraid that it will be some time before we see any resolution of these matters. This is extremely serious; it was a disappointing reply; but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 39 [Interpretation of Part II]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 20, line 40, at end insert--
	(""Class A drug" has the same meaning as in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
	Page 21, leave out lines 2 and 3.
	Page 21, line 30, leave out (""works"") and insert (""working"").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Exclusion orders]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 64:
	Page 25, leave out lines 31 to 43.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67.
	When the delegated powers committee looked at this Bill between Second Reading and Committee stage, it made an unequivocal recommendation. I referred to it previously and I said that the House should take a view about whether to accept that advice. If the House itself decided not to accept the recommendation, then the matters should be at least subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government have gone that far and they have done that.
	Subsequently, as I said at the previous stage of this Bill, I received a letter from the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which forcefully reminded me that when that recommendation was made it was the unequivocal recommendation of the committee that those powers should be omitted from the Bill and that secondary legislation should not be used to extend the parameters of sentencing. I strongly agree with that advice, as I believe the House should. As I said earlier, the committee went on to say that in the event of the House not accepting its recommendation, at least such matters should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe that to be the case.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in replying to these amendments in Committee did not see the necessity for omitting the powers, but he made reference to particular penalties where it is possible that a parameter of one or two years would not be enough and perhaps that ought to be increased. If we believe that that is the case, we should do that now. It does not mean that the courts will award tougher penalties because the maximum is increased; it means that at least the courts will have the flexibility to go to a higher sentence if they believe that to be appropriate.
	Unless the Government have in mind a particular penalty where that kind of flexibility is needed, I believe that we should wait until the next opportunity to pass primary legislation before increasing the parameters of sentencing. I also believe that we should heed the advice of the committee on this matter.
	My last point is one that I made in Committee. This could be the first time ever that this House has not accepted the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It takes its work seriously for which this House has been grateful. The committee tests the kind of powers that various Secretaries of State seek in legislation. I have been a Minister so I know the tendency of all departments to resort to either Henry VIII clauses or to general powers that give rise to secondary legislation. The temptation is enormous. I have sat in the same position as the noble and learned Lord, desperately trying to defend the situation, but in the end, under the previous government and, so far, under this Government, we have always accepted the advice and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I believe that this matter should not be an exception and that we should accept that committee's advice today. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I support this amendment to which I put my name. To be more precise, I support this string of amendments. The point that concerns us--the conferring of power to lengthen criminal sentences by regulation--is one that applies in a whole sequence of clauses.
	I know something about the consultations that led to the setting up of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. As the noble Baroness has said, it has given this House extremely good service. It is extremely careful in its use of language. It does not seek to lay down the law to the House; it seeks to draw issues to the attention of the House. In the light of the way in which that committee usually uses language, I find these recommendations, by its normal style, particularly strongly worded.
	I shall quote a few passages from the report of the committee because we should hear the flavour of the recommendations. It states:
	"The committee ... considers that it is inappropriate for Parliament to delegate the power to increase the severity of a sentencing power".
	That is sufficiently unambiguous. It also states:
	"In so far as precedents do exist"--
	other than in one single Act of the year 2000--
	"they date from before the establishment of this Committee, and so this issue has not come before us before".
	It continues:
	"the order-making power should be deleted from the bill. If, contrary to our recommendation, the power is to remain, the bill should be amended to make it clear that only affirmative procedure applies".
	In the light of those words, I do not believe that it is possible to maintain that introducing an affirmative procedure constitutes compliance with the committee's recommendation.
	I am reminded of the letter the King wrote to this House asking it to spare the life of the Earl of Strafford. He added at the end of the letter, "PS If he must die, it were charity to reprieve him till Saturday". Reprieving him till Saturday could not be regarded as complying with the letter; and I do not believe the House so understood it.
	The reason why it is important, and has been regarded so for quite a long time, that criminal sentences should not be lengthened by regulation is that it is a basic principle that we are subject only to law to which we ourselves have consented. We do not have law made by the executive. We do not have imprisonment by administrative decree. How far regulations are law to which we have consented is a question it would be uncomfortable for us to go into at too great length. It might give rise to too many other interesting questions. And when we get to legislation, not all of those need raising.
	It is much safer to have the lengthening of the maximum sentence that can be imposed done clearly, in primary legislation, with everybody knowing what is going on. That is a principle which goes back to the Donoughmore committee of 1932. Certainly, when I was first briefed on this subject by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and others when I arrived, they regarded it as one of the absolutely fixed points; that that was something which simply did not happen. They took exactly the same view which the committee has taken.
	I am the last person in the matter of regulations to say that nothing should ever change. But I shall repeat to the House the advice that was given to me when I started raising the question of this House voting on regulations. I was told that if that was ever to happen it was something which required the most exhaustive preparation and that there should be the fullest consultation and consideration by all the relevant organs of the House over a long period, which indeed it had. It was considered by the Procedure Committee. It was upheld in 1994 by a resolution of this House, and it was not until six years after that that it actually happened.
	So if the noble and learned Lord is to tell us that the convention that criminal sentences cannot be lengthened by regulation is to be changed, it would require, before that could be done, that element of preparation. And it would have to be a necessary condition of any such preparation that it would be understood that voting against regulations would become a great deal more frequent than anybody suggested it should be when we discussed the Greater London regulations. I am not sure that that is quite what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General would like. But if he were to persist with ignoring the advice of the committee in this matter, that is the direction in which his action would lead. I hope between now and the later stages of the Bill he will consider whether that is really what he wants.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I realise that the hour is getting late. But, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, there is a fundamental principle behind the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Blatch, and I am delighted to see that the Attorney-General has been good enough to attend to reply to this debate.
	I did not take part in the Committee stage and therefore I want to set out, I hope briefly, what I understand it is the Government are proposing and the effect of this amendment. As I understand it, if one looks at the clauses referred to, the Bill provides four new orders for a court to make: first, an exclusion order which, in certain circumstances, would prevent an individual going to certain places at certain times; secondly, a drug abstinence order which would require an individual to undergo drug tests; thirdly, a curfew requirement which imposes requirements on persons subject to curfew; and, fourthly, an exclusion requirement, which would impose requirements on those who were the subject of an exclusion order.
	The Bill lays down the maximum period for which any of those orders can be made. I understand it to be proposed that the Secretary of State or the Home Office should have power by secondary legislation to extend the maximum period of the order which this House is now approving in the Bill and therefore the maximum order, which by the decision of this House, the courts can now impose. It is proposed that that should apply at any stage to this Bill and the powers which we are providing in it. They may be small matters but every one of them in some way curtails a right of the individual. It may be his right as against an exclusion order; his right to refuse to be tested for drugs; or his right to go where he wishes during the period of a curfew order.
	We should consider carefully what is the situation of this House when increasing the powers of the order which a court can make. I believe that the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature is extremely important. I believe that there is a delicate balance often to be struck. I believe it vital that we should always realise that the power of the judiciary is to impose sentences--and I accept in this case pass fairly nominal orders--within the power granted to them by the legislature.
	The question is whether it is right that the legislature should allow those powers to be varied by means of secondary rather than primary legislation. I put it to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that the parameters--where we draw the line of that which the court is entitled to do--are extremely important. Those who draw the parameters must be accountable to society for the parameters they draw.
	I am not saying that Parliament is not responsible for a statutory order. It is, but it is not in the same way responsible as it is for primary legislation. I believe that when we are changing those parameters so as to prevent the citizens of this country doing acts which otherwise they lawfully can do it is important that that matter should have the opportunity of full parliamentary debate. I suspect that pretty well all I have said, if it made sense at all, would not be disagreed with by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
	The argument put by the Minister who replied in Committee went no further than to say, "You have to have flexibility and there is not enough time". Of course, I accept that the whole object of an Opposition is to take up time. The Government's legislative programme is always under pressure but it is no excuse to say, "We wish to affect individual rights by order merely because we do not have time to get the primary legislation through the House". I hope that the Attorney-General will reflect on what is said in this debate. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, who is a member of the Select Committee, may also say a few words. The Select Committee made it absolutely clear that it was concerned about the powers being taken in the Bill.
	The Minister who replied to the debate said that there were precedents for what was sought to be done. That is probably so. However, what are those precedents, and is it right to move in this way? It is difficult to go against the advice of the Select Committee comprising people of such eminence as my noble friend Lord Alexander. I hope that the Attorney-General will confirm my understanding of the effect of these amendments and reflect on whether it is right to act by secondary rather than primary legislation.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I do not speak as someone who considers himself an eminent member of the Select Committee or of an Opposition whose only object is to take up time. My noble friend Lord Carlisle and I share the additional objective of helping Parliament as a whole to get the legislation right.
	It is helpful to turn to the mantra which heads every report, including the 22nd report, of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee:
	"By the Select Committee appointed to report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislation".
	I speak tonight only for myself and not for my colleagues on the committee. I respectfully endorse what has been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle. When one considers, not the reduction, but the maximum of a sentencing power, one must approach the matter with great care. If this House does not regard the liberty of the citizen as of overriding importance we have moved a long way from our traditional priorities. I do not believe that we have.
	The committee is called upon to express an opinion as to whether the delegation of power in a Bill is appropriate. One has only to read the annual report of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, who chairs the Select Committee, to see that it is an all-party committee which since its establishment has never expressed an opinion as a result of a vote. That is certainly so in the case of the report now under discussion. I pause, or perhaps I am flannelling, to allow the Attorney to be informed, because Attorneys do not take instructions. On this occasion, as on all others, the committee arrived at the conclusion, without any division, that it would be inappropriate to permit the extension by order of a sentence of each of the kinds dealt with in the amendments.
	I hope that when he comes to reply the Attorney will tell the House why he considers it appropriate, contrary to the views of the committee--which are not binding--to increase the powers. If noble Lords were debating a provision to diminish a sentencing power it would be a different matter. That would not impinge on the liberty of the subject, whereas here it does.
	In conclusion, I should like to put two questions. First, what are the precedents, if any? In paragraph 16 of the 22nd report we find that the Home Office identified two precedents: Sections 45 and 50 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. A footnote reminds us that there is a third precedent in Section 50. However, paragraph 16 states that the Home Office,
	"readily admitted that these were not an exact parallel. In so far as precedents do exist they date from before the establishment of this Committee, and so this issue has not come before us before".
	Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that those are the only quasi-precedents and that there are no exact precedents?
	Secondly, what are the circumstances in which the Government would view it as expedient to have an order-making power to enlarge this sentencing power? We are not in the habit of suffering a drought in legislation from the Home Office in the criminal justice field. What is the urgency? Why not wait for the next criminal justice Bill or similar measure? I would be greatly assisted by replies to those two questions.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions that have been so moderately made. There is no question of ignoring the advice of the committee. It is a committee of great eminence. It is always enormously respected by the House. What the committee said was that it recommended that the powers should be omitted. If those powers are to remain--contrary to its recommendation--the committee suggests that they should be subject to affirmative procedure. So it is only fair that I should read out the whole of the caveat and point out that we have gone to the compromise position of the affirmative procedure.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, put to me one or two questions about precedents and what would be the requirement for the order-making power. The requirement comes because the orders are experimental in nature and are due to be piloted. We cannot be absolutely certain about the most effective period of time for the orders because they differ. The maximum length of the exclusion order is set at one year, partly because it is less intrusive than the curfew order where the maximum is six months. The exclusion order may be too short to be effective against a stalker or someone intent on domestic violence. That is the reasoning and the answer I give to the second question which the noble and learned Lord put to me.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, asked me to confirm that he was correct in his description--I do--where speaking of exclusion orders, drug abstinence orders and exclusion and curfew requirements of community service orders. So the noble Lord is quite right.
	I return to precedents. The maximum period of a community order can be increased by secondary legislation. The maximum term of a probation order and a curfew order can be amended using delegated powers. Section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 allows the proportion of a prison sentence spent in custody to be changed, including its increase by secondary legislation. I am happy to deal with the points--the two barrels of that very fine shotgun, respectively the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
	It seems to me--I put this only for consideration--that that power is a very significant power going directly to the liberty of the individual who is incarcerated. If one wants to look qualitatively at the differences between imprisonment and the kind of orders which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, correctly identified, I would suggest, with great respect, that Section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is a more significant potential interference with the true liberty of an individual and that it can be increased by secondary legislation.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the 1991 Act implemented the proposals of the committee, which I had the honour of chairing, for reforming the parole system and provided for the release of those serving sentences of four years or less at the 50 per cent stage?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right and reinforces my point. If in those past liberal days--I am deliberately not looking at the noble Earl, Lord Russell--it was right to release at the 50 per cent stage, I think that the noble Lord has honourably, if I may say so, identified and crystallised my point even more. I would suggest--I do not think that there is a tolerable argument to be levied against my suggestion--that the increase from a half, on the noble Lord's recommended scheme, to three-quarters by secondary legislation, which is possible under Section 49 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991--that type of potential interference with the liberty of theindividual--is much more fundamental than what is proposed here. We propose that if the pilots produce evidence to imply that these periods are wrong, secondary legislation, subject--I say this firmly--to the affirmative procedure, is much less objectionable if one wants to attack the principle, and it is the principled approach which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, have put to me for my comment.

Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister explain why it is a good argument to say that because Homer nodded in 1991, he should nod again in 2000?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not a good argument, but when someone as distinguished as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asks me a question, I think it is right that I should give him the answer. If he asks me about what happened in the past and asks me to help him, I think I have a duty to the House, as well as it being a courtesy to him, to do it, however inconvenient the answer may be to certain factions. That is the unhappy truth of the matter. I am only the bearer of the message. I was not the constructor of the message in 1991, which I think was some six years before the last election.
	There are other points to be made, all of which will be equally disagreeable. Under the European Communities Act 1972, the Secretary of State can make regulations to bring into effect treaty obligations, including any provision as might be made by an Act of Parliament provided that this does not include creation of any criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of more than two years. That is a reasonably significant interference with the liberty of the individual. Therefore, what is proposed is not without precedent. Even if it were, the principled argument ought to be met.
	I have dealt with the argument on precedent, I have dealt with the argument about significant interference with individual liberty and I have given the reason for flexibility. We ought to pilot these new remedies if the evidence about what works and does not work is available. I submit that we have done decently by the recommendation of the committee. We have certainly not ignored it. We have not accepted it in full but we have adopted something which I suppose it would have described as the "least worst".
	These are all respectable arguments. I have not been instructed on them. They are perfectly tenable arguments to put in your Lordships' House, and I put them.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am most grateful to him for the care with which he has addressed the questions which I have put to him. The 1991 Act, which he cited, certainly eluded the Home Office representatives when they gave evidence to the committee. The question of precedent is interesting and important. Members in both Houses always look at precedent.
	Does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is a distinction to be made between the provision of the 1991 Act, which varies a component of the sentence--on the one hand, the proportion to be spent in custody and, on the other hand, the proportion to be spent on parole, but still serving the sentence--and what we are dealing with here? We are considering sentences which are whole and complete in themselves. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the distinction that it is one thing to vary a component within an overall sentence, but quite another to take powers to increase the sentence itself. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that that is a legitimate distinction which can be drawn?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, precedent can be an unhappy boomerang. If no precedent has been set, I shall be struck on the back of the head. If there are precedents, those who have inquired about them are in danger of being struck unless they duck.
	I agree that we cannot be bound simply by the existence or otherwise of precedents. However, I shall focus on the question put to me by the noble and learned Lord by returning to the correct identification made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. We are discussing, on the left hand, exclusion orders, drug abstinence orders and the exclusion and curfew requirements of community orders. On the right hand, we have the prospect that someone serving a sentence of imprisonment may have, by secondary legislation, the component to be suffered in prison--which, in direct response to the question put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is much more important than the notional sentence--rising from one-half to, say, three-quarters. If one wishes to balance those, I am happy to do so because I reassert--I believe that I am fundamentally right here--that in terms of interference with individual liberty, the left hand interference is infinitely less, both in its effect and in its quality, than the right hand.
	We all know that the apparent sentence imposed by the court is not the actual length of time that is to be served. What matters to the individual, his friends and family, relations and acquaintances, is not what has apparently been imposed by the judge, but the real time. Under Section 49, real time served in prison can be increased by secondary legislation. That does not reside in the same category of levels of interference with individual liberty as the power specified here.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, perhaps I may speak once more before the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sits down. Of course I had nothing to do with the framing of the 1991 Act, nor did I take part in the discussions on it; but I accept that I was responsible for the review of parole which led to it. However, there may be a difference in what he is saying and I should like to look again at the Act. The fact is that the three-quarter point was the point at which remission started for all prisoners. The proposal put forward by the Parole Review Committee was that those serving under four years should be allowed out once they had served 50 per cent of their sentence.
	However, without looking again at the provision I do not think that Section 49 in any way gave any power to a Secretary of State to increase the maximum sentence available to a judge to pass without referring back to Parliament. Surely the issue here is not the effect on the individual, but whether in principle it is right that the executive--I accept that there are arguments on both sides--should have the power, through order-making procedures rather than in primary legislation, to increase the order that the court can make. As I understand it, that did not apply in the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the 1991 Act. I believe that he was saying that the executive took to themselves the power to vary the period within the sentence which was passed.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with great respect, that is entirely my point. The principle derives only from the effect made on the individual. That has been the reasoning behind the careful arguments which have been put. To paraphrase the principle rather crudely and not entirely satisfactorily: it is Parliament, through primary legislation, which must act as the watchdog over individual liberties. If that is the principal thrust, which I see it to be, then if the Secretary of State can say that the 50 per cent introduced by the Parole Review Committee can be increased by secondary legislation to, let us say, two-thirds or three-quarters, effectively the real time to be served by the individual will be determined by secondary legislation introduced by the Secretary of State. It does not seem to me that there is any distinction in principle there at all.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been meticulous in picking up the arguments and the tests set for him by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Carlisle.
	My noble and learned friend and my noble friend have valiantly fought back and argued against the example cited by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. However, another point was picked up by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. If I may use non-lawyers' language and be more colloquial, the Select Committee said that two wrongs do not make a right. The Select Committee made reference to the fact that it was not in being at the time of the previous legislation. Implicit in what it said was that, had it been, it might have queried even the power to which my noble and learned friend and my noble friend referred.
	We should judge the recommendation in the light of the here and now; in the light of the way in which the Select Committee does its work. The Select Committee was set up because there was a growing concern about the numbers of powers being taken by various Secretaries of State, the width of those powers and the fact that they gave rise to a great deal of legal activity through secondary legislation. I know that this has been a particularly vexed issue for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who has constantly cited the convention of the House that one does not amend secondary legislation--one either rejects it or accepts it--which always makes it particularly difficult.
	The principle established by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee is that before the House considers an issue the Select Committee looks carefully at the powers to be taken in legislation and proffers its advice. Up until this moment that advice has always been taken. The Select Committee in this instance has made an unequivocal recommendation that these powers should be omitted from the Bill.
	The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General read out the whole recommendation. I did the same. I made it absolutely clear that the caveat--which was confirmed in the letter sent to me after Second Reading by the chairman of the Select Committee--applied only if the House, as a House, rejected the recommendation of the Select Committee.
	I believe that we should accept the recommendation of the Select Committee. I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. I do not believe that we should go back simply because it was used in 1991, albeit a real distinction has been made in that we are talking about whole sentences and not component parts of sentences. The noble and learned Lord is right: if one is talking about a component part of a sentence it can, potentially, impact on the liberty of an individual.
	The Select Committee has proffered good advice. It should be taken. We should continue consistently to accept the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee unless we have very good reasons for not doing so. When there are more learned noble Lords in the House than the few qualified people present at the moment, the House should take a view on these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 44 [Drug abstinence orders]:
	[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
	Clause 47 [Community sentences: curfew requirements]:
	[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
	Clause 48 [Community sentences: exclusion requirements]:
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
	Clause 50 [Breach of community orders: warning and punishment]:

Lord Windlesham: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 35, line 17, at end insert--
	("(1D) In addition to making an order under sub-paragraph (1C) above, the magistrates' court may impose a fine which shall not exceed £1,000."").

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, we come now to another item of unfinished business from the earlier stages of the Bill. In the form in which it was debated on Second Reading, Clause 50--originally numbered Clause 48--was one of the most objectionable in the entire Bill. To remind ourselves of the nightmare that has now passed, it provided for a mandatory sentence of up to three months' imprisonment, other than in exceptional circumstances, for the breach of a community order, the offender having received one prior warning.
	Fortunately, the Summer Recess afforded time for second thoughts on the part of the Home Secretary, prompted by representations from various Members of your Lordships' House and others, notably the Lord Chief Justice.
	In Committee earlier this month, what is effectively a new clause (now Clause 50) was inserted by way of a government amendment. Although the process that has been substituted is extremely complicated and will take a lot of getting used to in the courts--difficult decisions will have to be taken when an offender is brought back for breach--nevertheless, the unacceptable degree of rigidity has been relaxed, and that is very welcome. Within some limits, sentencing discretion has been returned to the courts, where it belongs.
	There is, however, scope (as there always is) for one further improvement. It does not affect either the principle of certainty of outcome, to which the Government are so wedded, or the way in which the clause is now drafted. Both of those are in general acceptable. But there is one omission; namely, the question of the ability of the court to impose a fine.
	Perhaps I may briefly rehearse the sequence of events proposed in the amended Bill. As it stands, if an offender is over 21 years of age, and the court decides that the original order can continue, then the options are: a community punishment--that is, unpaid work for the benefit of the community--or a curfew order. These are the two principal penalties available to the court.
	There are cases where the offender may not be suitable for a community punishment order--for reasons such as addiction, mental illness, or incapacity because of poor health, when it would not be within the capacity of the offender to carry out the obligations under such an order--and where a curfew order may be unsuitable. These two orders look all right in government discussion papers; but the curfew order would simply not be appropriate where there is unstable accommodation, and many offenders have no stable home address. Then there is the question of domestic violence. What happens if an offender is sent back to a home at which a partner will be at risk? In such cases the courts would be wrong to consider a curfew order; nor would they be willing to do so. In these circumstances a fine should be available to the court.
	That sanction is not currently listed in the Bill as an option, although its inclusion was urged by several speakers in our earlier debate, including the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We might pause here to note that it was the noble and learned Lord's first speech in his new capacity as Lord Chief Justice, bearing in mind that he was only appointed to that high office during the summer, although he had previously been a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and Master of the Rolls. It was very welcome that he allowed so little time to elapse before following the practice set by his predecessors in office of bringing high judicial experience of sentencing to bear in debates in this House on criminal justice.
	So without the possibility of a fine, where an offender is unsuitable for any other disposal, the alternative left to magistrates and judges would be to revoke the order and to re-sentence to imprisonment. That would be cumbersome and also--surely more importantly in the interests of justice--it would be disproportionate.
	I am aware that the Government are concerned about the failure rate in collecting fines, but there are grounds for hoping that the changes in enforcement to be brought in by the Access to Justice Act 1999 will improve the situation. The only reason offered by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, in response to our earlier debate, for not including fines--namely, that it was a lower sentence in the tariff than the community sentence originally imposed--was, if I may say so, blown out of the water by no less a figure than the Lord Chief Justice, whose comments on that proposal can be found in Hansard.
	In the circumstances, I hope that the Government will be willing to think again about making this relatively small, but potentially useful, change. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support this amendment to which I have attached my name. We were delighted in Committee when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General put forward certain amendments that brought some flexibility to a clause that we found very objectionable in the first instance. The one aspect missing here is something that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, demonstrated; namely, the fact that, although there is some flexibility, what is required is the inclusion of fines as one of the alternatives that a magistrate and a Crown Court could consider.
	The amendment has the backing of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. I hope very much that the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will be taken into account and that fines can be included as an alternative in the clause.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, in my view, the amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful because it would undermine the effectiveness of the new system for dealing with breach of community orders, at which Clause 50 is directed. There are three reasons for my disagreement. First, if fines become an alternative, the amendment would produce an inconsistency in sentencing. Those on the Benches opposite will remember the events of 1991 when the Criminal Justice Act introduced the concept of unit fines, which was rapidly withdrawn--in fact, abolished--by the Criminal Justice Act 1993. That piece of history is not put forward critically but merely to indicate the complexity with which the philosophy of fines has affected this House and the courts. There is no philosophy. We are now left with Section 18, as amended in the 1991 Act, which leaves a wide and ill-defined scope to the power to impose a fine. The court must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the offender's financial circumstances.
	In that loosely-defined regime, one can readily see, despite the good intentions of those proposing the amendment, that many courts will treat the possibility of a fine as a cheap and easy alternative, which, in some cases, they will adopt, while in others they will go to the other extreme. However, in either event, they will undermine the effectiveness of the alternative penalties of curfew or a community punishment order. The state of thinking about fines has led a distinguished academic to talk about the "diversity and indiscipline" with which courts apply them. Hence my first reason; namely, that there is a real risk that the amendment would introduce inconsistent sentencing.
	My second reason is practicality. Many of those who will be in breach of such orders as we are concerned with will be living upon the minimum state security benefits to which they are entitled. A fine may have some punitive effect on a rich or well off defendant; it will always have a serious punitive effect on someone on a minimum income. If the state has designed that income to reflect the minimum that is necessary for ordinary life, to impose a fine on such a person is immediately to put him or her below the standard which the state has said is the minimum that is reasonably acceptable. That hardly becomes a theory of effective penal reform. It is therefore, I submit, impractical.
	Finally--this is perhaps much the most important point--if introduced, fines imposed on this kind of offender create the real risk that because they cannot afford to pay they will reoffend. I can find only one piece of research carried out by the Home Office in 1973 based upon reasonable data. It sought to investigate the effect of courts imposing fines on probationers and consequent reoffending. The data led the study to conclude that there was a consistent tendency for probationers who had been fined to have a relatively high failure rate; in other words, to reoffend. The literature is based on reasonable data and is against the concept of fining those who are the subject of conditional orders such as community orders.
	I hope that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will deal with my next point. The terms of the amendment appear to suggest that the fine will be an additional penalty rather than an alternative one. However, I shall leave that to him to explain. I conclude by opposing the amendment on the basis that a reasoned critique shows it to be inappropriate.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made some interesting points about fines. I do not know whether he will be present when we discuss the proposal in Clause 69 to double fines for another group of people to whom many of the arguments made by the noble Lord apply.
	I shall leave my noble friend to respond to some of the detailed technical points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. However, my understanding of the amendment is that it seeks to increase the choices available to the courts which have at least one primary obligation; namely, to mete out the most effective and appropriate punishment for the criminal activity that has been committed by the person before them. The amendment offers one further option to the courts; namely, to be able to consider a fine alongside all the other available measures. If the imposition of a fine is appropriate and has the effect of appropriately punishing an individual, why deny the court that choice?
	The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made some interesting points on the effect of the imposition of a fine and the impact on the effectiveness of the proposals that the noble and learned Lord is defending on behalf of the Government. I look forward to hearing my noble friend address the points I mentioned. As I say, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, will repeat some of the arguments he has made when we discuss the option of a fine for parents whose children are truanting from school.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I invite her to note that Clause 69 deals with parents of children who truant. I am talking about penalties against convicted offenders who are the subject of court sentences.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take that point but I understand that a parent brought before the court would be convicted of being at least complicit in their children not having attended school.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is sad to find the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, insistent on heavier penalties. It is a unique experience for me.

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, we argue for neither heavier nor, after the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, less severe penalties. These are alternatives. If the noble and learned Lord can fasten that thought in his mind it would help the discussion.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have it firmly fastened in my mind. I understand an alternative and an addition. As my noble friend Lord Brennan rightly pointed out, the amendment states:
	"In addition"--
	not "instead of" or "as an alternative"--
	"to making an order under sub-paragraph (1C) above"--
	sub-paragraph (1C) relates to the attendance centre order--
	"the magistrates' court may impose a fine".
	Thus I fix my mind firmly to the only point which offers itself. Our present proposed sentence is an attendance order. As co-conspirators, the noble Lords propose not an attendance centre order but the attendance centre order and a fine.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, it is "may".

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is, of course, "may" but that is not an alternative to simply having a fine as opposed to an order. In other words, the noble Lords take the proposed present sentence and add--I take the words "in addition"--£1,000 on top of the attendance centre order. That may be what they want--they may have been mixing with unsuitable company--but I do not think that it is.
	That point is fatal to the presently constructed amendment. But I believe that the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was correct. I have nothing to add to it.

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, that response, charmingly given as usual, is disappointing in substance. The House will welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. The Government Front Bench will welcome his speech even more. Discussion has continued over seven hours with a break for dinner--a civilised habit in this House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is only the second person on the government Benches in all that time to speak. The first was his neighbour--he loyally still remains in the House at this hour--the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who made an earlier intervention. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was extraordinarily powerful, ingenious and well argued.
	However, whatever the drafting, we cannot disregard the fact that the Lord Chief Justice said in an earlier debate that he felt that fines should be an alternative penalty available to the courts. I studied and wrote about unit fines in the early 1990s. It is a sad and involved story. But I do not accept any parallel between the story of unit fines and their collapse and what we talk about now.
	To my astonishment, the Attorney-General--he is normally so flexible on these matters--insists that the court cannot impose a fine. We shall ban the court from even considering a fine. It will not be beyond the wit of the Home Office or others giving sentencing guidance to say that the intention is that it should be one of these three orders. I mention only the two because the attendance centre order relates only to young people. But he rules out and removes from the discretion of magistrates and the Crown Court the ability to impose a fine when they believe that that is right. It may be the only remaining penalty that can be imposed.
	The examples I gave came from the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. Those individuals see offenders in court day in and day out. They feel strongly that in some circumstances--I mentioned the examples that they cited--the court will not be able to impose a curfew order or a community service order. In those cases the outcome will be a prison sentence, which could be a disproportionate and unjust penalty. I would greatly regret that, but at this time of night I shall say no more, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
	Clause 57 [Life sentences: tariffs]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Page 41, line 13, leave out from ("direction") to ("there") and insert ("which it would have given under section 87 below (crediting periods of remand in custody)"").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. The earlier reference was incorrect. I hope that the amendment corrects it. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 58 [Abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life, etc.]:

Lord Dholakia: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71:
	Page 42, line 6, at end insert--
	("( ) This section will be commenced only after standards have been set and age appropriate provision made for young adults (18 to 24 years old) in custody.").

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, when I drafted the amendment I was not aware that the Government intended to table Amendment No. 72. It meets the concern that lies behind Amendment No. 71, so I shall not pursue my amendment, on the assumption that Amendment No. 72 will be carried.

[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Page 42, line 15, at end insert--
	("( ) On the coming into force of this section--
	(a) paragraph (b) of the definition of "qualifying sentence" in section 30(1), and
	(b) paragraph (b) of the definition of "relevant sentence" in section 66(9),
	are omitted.").

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He and I share a concern that, although all those over 18 may be sentenced as adults, they should not all be treated in the same way as more hardened criminals. We want to introduce flexibility to the prison regime and make more appropriate provision for young adults and a large number of prisoners whose maturity and vulnerability is not necessarily related to their chronological age.
	In another place, the Minister of State, Mr Boateng, made it clear that we would not implement the abolition of the sentence of detention in a young offender institution until appropriate arrangements were in place. I repeat that intention. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is well aware of that. I happily give a further commitment that the Prison Service will produce an order covering young adult offenders before DYOI is abolished. That will be drawn up after consultation with interested bodies. The order is likely to focus on the reduction of reoffending by moving young adult offenders from custody to work more effectively. Consultation will continue. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 73:
	After Clause 62, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:INFORMATION ABOUT PROSECUTION
	(" . It shall be a duty of the authority prosecuting an offence listed in schedules 1 and 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 to inform the victim of that offence, or the representative of the victim, of the progress of the prosecution.").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return again to our concern for the victim, particularly in the case of sex offences. They should receive better information and should be told about the progress of the prosecution. That should be an obligation on the prosecution. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are already tackling the issue. I fully understand the intention behind the amendment, but the Government are already there. The amendment would not add significantly to the steps currently in train to ensure better communication of significant decisions to all victims of crime, regardless of the type of offence. Those steps are being taken by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
	Any victim who asks will, as at present, be kept fully informed of the prosecution of such an offence. Under the victim's charter, that is currently the responsibility of the police rather than the prosecuting authority. However, following the review of the Crown Prosecution Service by Lord Justice Glidewell, and a recommendation made in the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Crown Prosecution Service is now running pilot projects to establish more effective ways of communicating its own decisions to victims; that is, decisions on whether charges are to be preferred or dropped, or whatever the step in the process may be. It is intended that a new system for all victims of crime will be put in place by April 2001.
	As I said at the outset, I fully understand that the noble Baroness's intention is to improve the current system. However, the Government believe that the measures which are already in hand and which have been in train for some time achieve that purpose, not only for this particular tragic group of victims but for all victims of crime. For those reasons, I do not feel able to accept the amendment and I trust that it can be withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Perhaps I may put two questions to him. First, can he confirm specifically that the intention behind my amendment is covered? Can he say specifically that in relation to the offences listed in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 the prosecutor will have a duty to inform victims of the progress of the prosecution? Is the noble Lord responding with an unequivocal "yes" to that?
	Secondly, he referred to the fact that a new system for all victims of crime would be in place by 2001. Has that already been legislated for or does it require legislation?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I indicated in my earlier comments, the proposal is based on pilot schemes. As I made plain, it is intended that this approach will cover all types of offence and that a new system for all victims of crime will be in place by April 2001. The victim's charter is guidance only; it is not legislation. However, as is often the case, legislation is not always required in order for schemes to take effect; they can be carried out by administrative fiat. That is our preferred approach in this case. The service on offer to victims of crime will be universal. Of course, we need to ensure that it is effective and that it works well. It will be run through the Crown Prosecution Service and the police.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps it is the lateness of the hour or perhaps it is me, but I did not understand the answer to my question. I believe that the noble Lord said that the duty to inform victims is not an obligation under the law and that it is no more than as set out in the charter. The right of victims of crime, and particularly of offences listed under Schedules 1 and 2, to be informed of the progress of the prosecution is not specifically covered. The noble Lord did not appear to say yes to that, and I should be pleased if he could give me an answer.
	Secondly, on the one hand, the noble Lord said that pilot schemes would be put in place next year; on the other, he said quite clearly that a system covering all victims of crime would be in place by 2001. Which is it? Is a pilot scheme being trialled in order to put a system in place, or has the scheme been finalised, is ready to be implemented and will be in place for all victims by 2001?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at the peril of repeating myself, I said that the system would be in place for all victims by April 2001. The answer to the noble Baroness's first question is: yes, it is indeed the case that pilots are now being run by the CPS, but a full system for all victims of crime will be in place by April 2001. I do not believe that I can express my answer more plainly, simply, basically or straightforwardly than that, but that is exactly what we are intending to do.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord missed out the key point. Is that an obligation under the law or is it simply an obligation under the charter?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not law; it is an act of policy. It is already in place and being implemented. We do not require law in order that it should be carried out. We are doing it as a matter of policy.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this was a concern of the victims themselves who do not believe that it is being done. I shall return to this at Third Reading and make it a matter of law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 74:
	After Clause 62, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE OF SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE
	(" . In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(j) there is inserted--
	"(k) the court, when passing sentence, did not state in ordinary language and in open court--
	(i) the existence of the power of the Secretary of State to release prisoners under this section; and
	(ii) the period of imprisonment that the prisoner would serve were the Secretary of State to release him immediately after having served the requisite period under subsection (4) below."").

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a series of amendments, Amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79. The Government's early release scheme allows the Secretary of State to release certain categories of prisoners from gaol early, often before they have served half of their sentence. They may spend the final two months of their custodial sentence in the community subject to a nine-hour electronically monitored curfew. If this curfew period is breached the offender can be recalled to prison. An offender sentenced to custody for six months will ordinarily be released in three months. If included in the scheme an offender could be out in a mere six weeks.implementation of the scheme in January 1999 and 54 of those persons have been convicted of manslaughter, 145 of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer and over 3,500 of drug offences. Over 800 of those released have breached the terms of their curfew. Forty-one people have disappeared and remain unlawfully at large in the community. Just over 750 further offences have been committed by offenders who were out on the scheme. There are 750 further victims of crime because of this policy.
	We have consistently opposed the scheme. We make no apology for that. We moved the amendment throughout the Commons stages and in Committee in this House. It was also the topic of an Opposition day debate in the Commons in July. It is not right that serious criminals are able to leave prison after less than half their sentence has been served.
	Amendment No. 74 focuses on the needs of victims rather than criminals. In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stated that the consequences of my amendments would be to ensure that no one in prison could go on the scheme. I do not deny that. This is one of the precise aims of the amendment. The amendment also seeks to keep victims of crime better informed. Again, in Committee the noble and learned Lord said:
	"We believe that the net result would be additional time-consuming bureaucracy for the courts".--[Official Report, 4/10/2000; col.1633.]
	If informing victims more fully and involving victims more in the court process is more work, then I say that is not bureaucracy. So be it. Certainly, it would be in a good cause. We are concerned that victims should be able to understand the sentences when they are meted out in court.I turn to Amendment No. 75. Section 111 of the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act sets a minimum three-year sentence for a third conviction for domestic burglary. Such an offender would be eligible for the scheme resulting in him being released possibly after 16 months, that is, the automatic half-way point minus the two-month period on the scheme. This is a nonsense. It renders Section 111 completely pointless. What is the point of an automatic sentence if it can be completely undermined by this scheme? So far over 2,000 offenders convicted of burglary have been released on this scheme. We do not know how many of them have committed a third burglary. A scheme should not overtake the power of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act that makes a mockery of the legislation passed by Parliament.
	I turn to Amendment No. 77. At present any offender can be placed on the scheme provided he meets the criteria of having been sentenced to more than three months or less than four years. They are also eligible if convicted of sex offences. The amendment gives the judge the power to rule out the scheme at the point of sentencing. This would have two benefits. The court could say at the outset that a person would or would not qualify for the scheme. It would allow the home detention curfew scheme to be used as part of the sentencing procedure; for example, maybe a lesser sentence but ineligibility for the scheme. It would allow the victims of crime to understand the sentence given because the judge would be forced to explain the consequences of the scheme in open court. I know that this would reduce the scope of the scheme by limiting it to the judge's discretion, which, so often in this Chamber, has been hard fought for. However, use of the scheme would have more merit by being underwritten quite explicitly in open court.
	Amendment No. 78 relates to an offence under Section 89 of the Police Act 1996, of assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable followed by an offence under Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is assault with intent to resist arrest, and an offence under Sections 18, 20 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which includes wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm committed against a constable in the exercise of his duty.
	So far, nearly 150 people convicted of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer have been released early. The average sentence imposed for those offences is 4.6 months but the average sentence served in prison was only 1.5 months. The offender then served 0.8 months on the scheme. Iwonder whether that makes sense to those who have been assaulted in that way.
	Seventeen assaults on police officers and two assaults in the course of resisting arrest have been committed by offenders who were on the scheme. At the very least, the Government should show their support for the police by accepting this amendment at a time when the police are demoralised. Huge numbers of officers are leaving the force and police numbers are falling. That would at least show that the Government's manifesto promise is not completely forgotten.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 76. While no prisoners are eligible for the scheme if they receive a sentence of more than four years, they would still, under this amendment, be eligible where the maximum possible sentence is more than this amount. In fact, according to my amendment, it would be a maximum of 10 years or more. Anybody who is sentenced to, for example, three-and-a-half years, where the maximum for the sentence is more than 10 years has committed a fairly serious crime. It seems to me that those people should be excluded from the scheme. The amendment, I accept, reduces the scope of the scheme, excluding from the scheme those convicted of such serious offences--and I mean serious offences--if the maximum is 10 years or more. The sentences include burglary of a dwelling and aggravated burglary, importing orexporting Class A and Class B drugs, robbery and making threats to kill people. The amendment reduces the focus on the sentence given and transfers it to the offence actually committed. These are important amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said today and has said previously, there is a fundamental disagreement here. She has said quite candidly, as has Mr Hague, that she wishes the total destruction of the home detention curfew scheme. My stance is completely the opposite. It has been a remarkably successful scheme and we have no intention of scrapping it. It is one of the biggest electronic monitoring schemes in the world; it has had an extremely successful first 20 months of operation.
	I should say as a matter of history rather than as a partisan point that the home detention curfew scheme received the unanimous support of the All-Party Home Affairs Committee in the Commons which said that it would,
	"provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and would give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison".
	That is the critical point. I must correct a slip that I made. I believe that on the last occasion I said four months and, as the noble Baroness rightly said, it is two months available on home detention curfew. All of those persons, every one of them, would inevitably have been out at the conclusion of that two month period.
	Earlier this evening, we had a number of discussions in the probation context about rehabilitation. As the All-Party Home Affairs Committee unanimously said, home detention curfew provides an opportunity for offenders to readjust to life outside prison. We all know the indicators of recidivism--no job, no home, no settled social surroundings. In my experience of visiting prisons where the scheme has been carried out, many prisoners regard it as more difficult than imprisonment because it imposes personal obligations on people who have never had them before. Some prisoners, in significant numbers, I found, were unwilling to ask for home detention curfew because, as they said, "They couldn't hack it". A sobering thought is that for them the easier life is to be locked up in prison with no responsibility for their own lives.
	Prison governors have been extremely prudent and restrained in the use that they have made of this power. Only 30 per cent of eligible offenders have been released. I know from my own visits that there is extremely close co-operation between prison governors, probation officers and the police. They are extremely cautious about the risk assessment process, remembering that that process takes into account the risk that offenders may pose to the victim, the risk they may pose to members of the public, the likelihood of reoffending during the curfew period and the likelihood of failure to comply with the conditions of the curfew. It is a remarkably successful scheme.
	The noble Baroness dealt fully with the amendments so I shall mention them in a little detail. The first new clause would prevent any prisoner being put on a home detention curfew scheme unless the existence of such a scheme had been explained by the court at the time of sentencing, together with the way in which the scheme would affect the length of time to be spent in custody. That means that the court would have to be asked to determine whether a given offender should be eligible for consideration for release on such a scheme. If the court does not mention the matter, the offender is automatically barred, even though he would otherwise be appropriately and properly eligible.
	The new clause requires the court to specify the precise amount of time that would be served in custody. That is the way to false expectations. The sentencing court has no basis at all for determining whether a given offender will be eligible because it does not know what will happen in prison. Behaviour in prison, response to therapeutic regimes, response to probation guidance, and how the sentence plan is fulfilled in prison are critical criteria for the determination of eligibility. I repeat, with great respect to the noble Baroness: the sentencing court has none of those materials to hand, and it is being asked to come to an impossible conclusion, as any magistrate who has sat in those circumstances or any sentencing judge will readily recognise.
	The amendment also gives the courts power to prevent an offender being considered for home detention curfew. We believe that the statutory exemptions are sufficient.
	Considering the other discretionary release, parole, no such provisions by way of limitation are attached. The interest of public protection must always be paramount, and the fact that a prisoner is eligible for home detention curfew or parole does not mean that he has a right to be so released.
	The fourth new clause is similar to the first. It requires the courts to look up to two years ahead and to try to make a judgment on what, I repeat, are inadequate, vestigial or non-existent materials.
	The second, third and fifth of the new clauses would add to the exclusion categories. The second new clause would exclude domestic burglars who have committed more than three offences, whatever the nature of the burglary. The third would exclude anyone committing any of the wide range of offences for which the maximum period is 10 years in prison or more. That sounds quite attractive until one considers the list of such offences. It would mean that someone who was guilty of conspiracy to defraud--maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment--would be automatically ineligible, but such a conspiracy may be quite trivial or ineffective for which the sentence was quite small.
	Cruelty to or neglect of children is an offence that has an infinitely variable spectrum, but it carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. Other offences carrying a similar penalty include destroying or damaging property--Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971; threatening to commit damage to property; forgery; copying, using or using a copy of a false instrument; and making a counterfeit coin or note, however inadequate the attempt. Are all such offenders--many petty inadequates--who are of no continuing harm to the public, their victims, or at risk of committing further offences, to be rendered thus ineligible? Are offenders convicted of interfering with goods with the intention of causing public alarm, anxiety and economic loss, to be ineligible? We know that indecent assaults vary extraordinarily in their effect. Are offenders convicted of obtaining property by deception under Section 15 of the Theft Act, or those convicted of fraudulent application or use of a trademark, to be excluded?
	The fifth new clause would exclude prisoners who had committed any one of three offences against police constables. In fact, the numbers of those placed on HDC whose original offence was committed against a police officer were 13 assaults with intent to resist arrest; 12 obstructions of, or resisting, a constable; 178 assaults on a police officer. All of those can be serious offences and some are less serious than others. The actual sentence length for the 13 was an average of 5.6 months; the obstruct or resist a constable was 5.5 months and the assault on a police officer was 4.7 months.
	We already have statutory exemptions: violent and sex offenders currently serving an extended sentence; prisoners serving a sentence for failing to return to custody following a period of temporary release; and prisoners who at any time have been returned to prison for committing an offence on licence. We have made provision within the present Bill to exclude sex offenders, subject to registration requirements.
	We shall not agree on this matter. This has been an extraordinary, flexible use of an imaginative remedy that, by and large, has been successful. Every one of those offenders would have been out in two months and would need to be got back into the community. That is one way of protecting the public.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I was a staunch supporter of electronic monitoring long before the noble and learned Lord joined us in that support. I believe we have nowhere nearly sufficiently exploited its use. There is still great scope for it. So the idea that somehow I am against it is entirely wrong. But I am against this early release scheme. It takes early release a step too far. To release people early affects the protection of the public.
	The Minister did not give a satisfactory answer to the notion of giving an automatic sentence to persistent burglars; not those who have burgled twice or three times, but in many cases hundreds of times, and who will now be eligible for the scheme. That seems to me to be a nonsense. It flies in the face of automatic sentencing.
	There have been breaches. People have disappeared and remain at large in the community. Over 750 further offences have been committed. One hundred and fifty people have resisted arrest and/or assaulted police officers. I regard those as very serious offences, certainly for the police officers in question. I argue therefore that the public are at risk and that people are released indiscriminately too early.
	Many of those people have relatively short sentences. For example, many people receive sentences of around six months and the idea that they should serve only six weeks of that sentence is an insult to those in the community who look to the sentencing process to give effective and proper punishment.
	But the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. We will agree to differ on this and I shall return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 not moved.]
	Schedule 5 [Amendments of the Sex Offenders Act 1997]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 62, line 10, leave out from ("requirements),") to end of line 18 and insert ("in subsection (1), for "14 days" there is substituted "three days".
	( ) For subsection (5) of that section there is substituted--
	"(5) A person may give a notification under this section by--
	(a) attending at any police station in his local police area, and
	(b) giving an oral notification to any police officer, or to any person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station,
	and a notification under subsection (2) above may also be given by sending a written notification to any such police station".").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these amendments extend to Scotland provisions in the Bill to increase the penalties for failure to register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997; to require initial registration within 72 hours and to allow for fingerprints and a photograph to be taken by the police at that stage; to provide for notification for foreign travel; and to provide for disclosure between agencies in respect of the requirement to register.
	I explained at Committee stage that the Scottish Parliament would be considering whether Westminster should legislate to extend some of the amendments to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 to Scotland. All these amendments, I am delighted to say, are consequential on the decision by the Scottish Parliament to adopt the measures to strengthen the regime for the registration of sex offenders which we introduced in Committee and which are part of the package often referred to as "Sarah's Law".
	The Scottish Parliament has agreed under the Sewel convention that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to Scotland to introduce these measures north of the Border. They will have the same effect and provide the same public protection, especially to children, in Scotland. I view this as a positive decision which will help to ensure that these crucial protections remain strong and coherent throughout the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord made no reference to the Law Society of Scotland, which has commented on these proposals. It is concerned and I want to be a vehicle for explaining its concerns.
	It has been suggested that there should be an increase in the maximum penalty from six months to five years if a sex offender fails to register within a specified time. The society appreciates the policy intention behind the proposal and agrees that if the seriousness of the offence is to be marked in some cases the six-month period may not be sufficient.
	The society would also welcome confirmation that in Scotland the procurator fiscal will have regard to the forum in which the original offence was prosecuted in deciding on the appropriate forum in which to process the failure to register. In the society's view, if the original offence was prosecuted on indictment, the failure to register should be treated in a similar fashion.
	As regards disclosure of information contained on the register, the society is concerned to note that no reference is made in the proposed amendments to a possible sanction for the unauthorised disclosure of information contained on the register. Such disclosure may have potentially serious consequences and consideration should be given to extending criminal liability if such disclosure is made.
	I put those points on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, having read Hansard, I shall consider carefully the points made by the noble Baroness and shall reflect further on them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 84:
	Page 62, line 25, leave out from ("above") to ("shall") in line 26.
	Page 62, line 28, leave out ("(5)(a)") and insert ("(5)(b)").
	Page 62, line 34, leave out from ("persons") to ("or") in line 35 and insert ("subject to the notification requirements of this Part").
	Page 62, line 46, leave out from ("Part") to second ("or") and insert ("who leave the United Kingdom").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 63, line 1, leave out from ("regulations") to ("is") in line 7 and insert ("make provision for requiring them--
	(a) to give in accordance with the regulations, before they leave, a notice under subsection (6E) below, and
	(b) if they subsequently return to the United Kingdom, to give in accordance with the regulations a notice under subsection (6F) below.
	(6E) A notice under this subsection must disclose--
	(a) the date on which he will leave the United Kingdom, the country to which he will travel (or, if there is more than one, the first country) and his point of arrival, determined in accordance with the regulations, in that country,
	(b) any other information prescribed by the regulations which the person holds about his departure from or return to the United Kingdom or his movements while outside the United Kingdom.
	In this subsection "country" includes territory.
	(6F) A notice under this subsection must disclose any information prescribed by the regulations about the person's return to the United Kingdom.
	(6G) The power to make regulations under subsections (6D) to (6F) above").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords--

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Whips' office grouped this amendment with the others. The grouping was Amendments Nos. 80 to 85, 87 to 93, 121 and 122.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if it expedites matters, I am happy to accept a regrouping on the Floor of the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 85 formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Courtown: moved Amendment No. 86:
	Page 63, line 10, at end insert--
	(" . After subsection (8) of that section there is inserted--
	"(9) The information in (2)(a) and (2)(b) above, may be made available by the police to any person on application where it is considered that such availability would be in the interests of the residents of the local police area, as defined in section 2(7) above."").

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first, I should like to declare an interest. I have a 14 year-old daughter, a 12 year-old son and a daughter who is not yet two weeks old. I must therefore catch a train very soon and I hope that everyone will take that into account!
	Having said that, this is an important issue. My amendment seeks to grant the police the power to allow a degree of controlled access to the information held on the sex offenders' register; that is, the names and addresses of known sex offenders in their local community. I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment today and I move it simply to ask the Government about their current thoughts on the issue. It is obviously something of a vexed subject at the moment and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
	In tabling the amendment, I am not suggesting that registers should be made generally available to the public, nor that the police should be forced to reveal information when they are asked.
	The amendment changes the method of disseminating information and grants a right of access rather than relying on the police to disclose it. The wording of the amendment is precise. First, it ensures that the police are under no obligation to accept the application for information, but they may do so when it would be in the interests of residents of a local police area. It also specifies that the information should not be given out until the police receive an application for it. The amendment intends that the onus should be very much on the applicant to prove his suitability to receive the information and to justify the reason for needing it.
	Secondly, the amendment allows for only the names and addresses of those registered to be given out, not photographs or any other information. To reveal the names and addresses of specific persons will give parents greater power and ensure that they are able to do all that they can to protect their children.
	It is now some four months since we were all shocked by the tragic death of the young schoolgirl Sarah Payne. I am sure that the whole House, even at this late hour, will join me in paying tribute to her family who have coped remarkably well in such terrible circumstances. They have also campaigned ceaselessly for a "Sarah's Law" to be introduced in this country. I acknowledge that proposals have been made by the Government, with the support of the Opposition, to tighten the laws on child sex offenders. However, I am also aware that those who have campaigned for a "Sarah's Law" are concerned that its central tenet--the control of public access to the register--has not been granted.
	The introduction of the register in 1997 was a massive step forward in the protection of children in this country. The register commands a compliance rate of at least 97 per cent, and we should not do anything that alters that situation. However, as it stands, the information on the register is disclosed only to specific groups, such as social services organisations, at the discretion of the police: there is no right of access to it. The amendment seeks to reverse the position. The notion of controlled public access to information on the register has attracted a large amount of support from the public which cannot be ignored. The response to this issue raised by the News of the World was a measure of the level of anxiety felt by parents.
	I do not expect the Minister to accept any such amendment today. However, I shall be interested to hear the Government's current thinking on this contentious and important issue. I hope that the noble Lord will reassure me that the Government will continue to monitor the working of the system. I am aware that the Minister has great sympathy with this matter, but I realise that there are difficulties. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate, and hope that the House will give the arguments that I have raised serious consideration. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I extend to the noble Earl my congratulations on his new fatherhood and my commiserations on his train. If I take a few moments of the time of the House, I shall try to be mindful of the train. None of us has yet thought our way round what is a very urgent and serious issue. The trouble is that it puts the two primary purposes of the law at odds with each other. On the one hand, the law is for the protection of the public, which is the one area on which the noble Earl has perfectly properly concentrated. On the other hand, it is also the purpose of the law, and has been for as long as there has been law of any kind, to prevent private vengeance. The danger of the amendment is that it may encourage the one in achieving the other. Clearly, that is not a happy state of affairs, any more than is the opposite.
	The basic trouble we face with paedophilia is that we do not yet have any adequate way to reduce the marginal propensity to offend. Until we do, whatever measures we take will necessarily be imperfect and inadequate. I cannot be happy about the encouragement of private vengeance. If people have suffered the penalty appropriate to their crime and are discharged from prison, they have a right to live in safety so long as they live peaceably. I feel unhappy about anything which threatens that. As Sherlock Homes once remarked:
	"A Judge Lynch may try the case".
	I do not want that to become recognised as the normal way to behave, because it weakens respect for the law. That is something which threatens us all.
	What is really needed is more understanding of the roots of the offending behaviour. At the moment we have practically none at all. Until we have that understanding, we really cannot know the proper way to treat the problem. Therefore, if anything we do will be a mistake, I would rather try to understand the subject a little better than we do at present before we do more than keep up the eternal vigilance which is the duty of law enforcement. That something must be done--I think the noble Earl knows--is one of the most dangerous cries in politics. I agree that something must be done; but I do not know what, and I would rather not do it until I do.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Earl. It is some 19 hours since my four year-old woke me so I understand the noble Lord's dilemma perfectly well.
	The new clause is a troubling clause. It is a clause which as a parent I find very difficult. I find the whole area difficult because, like any other parent, I want to afford to my children the maximum protection that I can. My problem with the amendment is that I do not believe it will achieve the objective that it has at its heart. I cannot believe that it will protect people in the way some might argue that it will, although I do understand the strength of feeling behind it.
	The issue of access to the information contained on the Sex Offenders' Register obviously has sparked an extensive debate since the sad and tragic death of Sarah Payne. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we are at a loss to be absolutely certain what is the right course of action. The noble Earl is right, we need a better understanding of what motivates that type of crime by the criminal. But, notwithstanding that, because the Government share the public's concern about sex offenders, they have moved very quickly indeed with a whole package of measures which are reflected in the Bill. They were considered during the Committee stage. They were also considered this evening when we put further measures into the legislation and extended their effect to Scotland. We are on the case. We are there. We are with the public on this. But it is getting the approach right that will drive us all forward.
	The police already have the power to disclose information about registered offenders where they consider that doing so would prevent a serious crime being committed. Therefore, they already disclose information to individuals and to organisations in local communities when they believe the circumstances justify that approach.
	The proposed new clause will affect the current position in two ways. First, anyone can apply to the police for such information. The question has to be, is that right? Secondly, the criteria for disclosure of the information will be changed from the prevention of serious crime to acting "in the interests of the residents of the local police area". Both of those changes would create further problems without necessarily enhancing the protection of the public and, in particular, children.
	The Government have carefully examined whether there should be "controlled" access to the sex offenders' register but have concluded that there is no practical way of achieving that. Therein lies the difficulty in this whole debate. They have done so following careful and detailed consultations with those who have primary responsibility for protecting the public from sex offenders. Once information has been disclosed, it is not possible to control what is done with it, whether it is given on to a third party or how it is used or perhaps abused in the public domain.
	The danger of the kind of public disorder incidents that we saw during the summer months is that they lead to a lower level of knowledge and monitoring about the behaviour of sex offenders. The understandable fear is that sex offenders will be driven underground and that it will be much more difficult for the police and Probation Service to keep track of their movements. A number of those who might have been affected by a controlled access approach, were it workable, have gone to ground as a consequence and their new identities and addresses are not known to the authorities. That makes it much more difficult to subject their activities to any form of monitoring or control. That fundamentally undermines rather than strengthens the protection of children and others and perhaps casts them into a more vulnerable situation.
	There are occasions when the police judge that, despite these possible reactions, it is not only necessary but essential to share information with individuals and organisations to prevent a repeat of some horrific sex crime. But such decisions have to be carefully balanced and considered. The lower threshold of "the interests" of the local community is another strangely ill-defined notion and would make it more difficult to control the disclosure of such information in a way which limits the risk of public disorder while at the same time maximising the protection of children.
	For those reasons, while I certainly sympathise with part of the motivation behind the amendment--certainly the concern behind it--we do not feel able to accept the amendment. I am sure that the noble Earl understands that. I read in a News of the World cutting that it is a probing amendment. The noble Earl has repeated that across theChamber. But that is where we see public policy at this time.
	It is worth placing on record that we have a debt of gratitude to all of those who have been involved in the Sarah's Law campaign and to Members of the party opposite who have given their support to our package of measures to strengthen the law and deepen further the protection of the vulnerable public.

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the Minister for their contributions. In many ways I understand the points they have made, but at the end of the day I speak as a parent. If someone on the sex offenders' register was living next door to me, I would want to know. I understand the arguments that have been made. In no way do I condone vigilante activity. I think that both the noble Earl and the Minister would agree with what I am saying. But I am thinking of the position of parents with young children who have someone on the sex offenders' register living next door. I shall read carefully what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 87 and 88:
	Page 63, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("a").
	Page 63, leave out lines 21 to 23.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Page 63, leave out lines 26 to 30 and insert ("or
	( ) a person fails to comply with any requirement imposed by virtue of section 2(6D) above to give a notice, or gives a notice which does not disclose the required information or which discloses information which he knows to be false").

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, I appreciate that at this late hour it may be tedious for noble Lords to listen to a short speech dealing with an exceptionally important point addressed in this amendment. I regret that, because of the grouping arrangements, the House may not be aware that, since we considered the Bill in Committee, the Government, through Amendments Nos. 85 and 89, have substantially altered the Bill. They have altered it much for the better. The enforcement of the register kept on sex offenders who travel abroad has been rendered far more effective. While applauding them for that, I should like to raise points on the regulations that are to be made under the Act.
	Noble Lords may recall that in a previous contribution I said that the register has achieved a 97 to 98 per cent rate of compliance. That is phenomenal. The Association of Chief Police Officers regards it as a most effective way both of controlling and of detecting sex offenders. That association, along with ECPAT (UK)--the NGO dealing with this problem--wants the register to be extended to cover people travelling abroad. These amendments achieve that and will increase the penalty imposed on those who breach the requirements.
	The points I wish to raise are as follows. The regulations introduce a power to require the offender to give information on his movements while travelling outside the United Kingdom. Surely that should include details of the itinerary as well as the addresses of hotels or other accommodation. To frame regulations which state that such information should be given only where the offender knows exactly where he is going would demonstrate far too much latitude to a convicted sex offender. The requirement must be much tougher. The reason for that is obvious: the compliance that exists in this country could then be transferred abroad. The police authorities, once they have been notified over here, could then tell the police authorities in the relevant countries where the person was travelling. The children in those countries would then enjoy protection, just as the register seeks to protect children living here.
	On a person's return, Amendment No. 85 would require that details of the journey should be given. Again, surely the relevant regulations should include a requirement to disclose the countries in fact visited. The immigration authorities can then examine the passport; and if someone states that he went to France, it will be discovered whether subsequently he visited the problem countries such as Sri Lanka, Thailand, the Philippines and so forth. What is the point of this requirement? It would establish, first, where such people were staying at the time when sex offences may have been committed. The information would be an aid to potential detection. Secondly, it would establish any change from the previously declared route. That in itself will be an offence under the restrictions provided in Clause 89.
	These matters occupy not only this country, but also the United Nations. When I visited Geneva two weeks ago, I discovered that those in the United Nations Commission for Human Rights looking into the rights of the child consider that international sex crime has now reached major proportions. Informally--subject to studying the details of the Bill--the commission's representatives indicated that they thought that the Government's initiative on the development of the register was of major potential importance to act as a model for other countries.
	With that important prospect in mind, I invite the Government to consider the following points, namely, that all existing offenders on the register must be notified both of the new law and of the penalties for not complying. Secondly, when are they supposed to give notice of their intended trip abroad? As I read the Bill, no precise timing is required. That timing will be required by the police in the countries they will visit, and notice needs to be given in due time.
	Thirdly, a question arises as to the giving of the notice to go abroad, either orally or in writing. With due respect to our constabulary, if someone comes into a police station and mumbles four or five foreign names and three or four hotel names, there is no real likelihood that there will be accuracy unless it is written down then and there, one copy being given to the person orally reporting and the other being retained by the police to be acted upon. If it is given in writing, the notice can be checked for its adequacy. In either event, Section 2(6) of the Sex Offenders Act allows the police to acknowledge the notice--in other words, to keep a precise record of what they were told. The net result should be that the register is effective.
	Your Lordships have been most patient. While the time is late and this topic comes up at the very end of the debate, it would be unfortunate, after the tribulations of today, if a change--which I think is welcomed on all sides of the House--was not properly recorded and the steps I have mentioned implemented to make this an effective reform.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for his intervention. I apologise for any unintended discourtesy in the way in which we rapidly moved through the amendments earlier.
	The amendment is very useful. It will provide for basic information to be sought from offenders on the register of the detail of their travel arrangements--the date of travel, the country of destination, the place of entry and so on. As part of the present review of the Sex Offenders Act, it is our intention to look at some of the other detail that may be usefully brought forward into this method of regulation. We think that the detail of that regulation will be very important. Some of the points made by the noble Lord--for instance, the address of where offenders may stay, the details of their tour itinerary, where their onward travel may be from their first destination, and so on--can be dealt with as part of the regulations.
	This is a very helpful contribution. We are leading the field in terms of dealing with international sex crimes against children. It is an area of developing law and developing regulation. We shall, of course, consult on the detail of the content of the regulations. I shall make careful note of the points made by the noble Lord, particularly the importance of giving written notification and ensuring that those offenders who fall within the remit of the amendment receive adequate advice, warning and information as to its effect. That is a very helpful suggestion.
	These are matters we shall further explore. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful contribution to this area of developing policy.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise profusely if I was responsible for the noble Lord missing the natural opportunity to make his points. My understanding of the instructions I received from the Whips' Office was that Amendment No. 85 was included in the group of amendments. I thought there had been a mishap involving the Minister. Had I realised that it would open up an opportunity for the noble Lord to make important comments that should be on the record, I apologise.

Lord Bach: My Lords, it was certainly not the noble Baroness's fault.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 93:
	Page 65, line 10, leave out from ("hospital") to end of line 11.
	Page 65, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 32 and insert--
	("At the end of section 10").
	Page 65, line 37, leave out (""3") and insert (""3(1A)").
	Page 65, line 37, leave out from ("(b)") to ("there") in line 38.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 65 [Section 64: interpretation]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved amendment No. 94:
	Page 45, line 31, leave out ("in England and Wales").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 65 deals with how you define those offenders covered by Clause 64 in respect of whom arrangements have to be made by the responsible authorities for assessing and managing the risk they pose.
	The technical amendments to Clause 65 have been proposed to clarify the statutory duty in respect of offenders sentenced by a court martial or by a courts-martial appeals court, to make it clear that it is limited to those offenders who are subject to the notification requirements under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 or to whom the conditions for disqualification from working with children set out in Sections 28(2) and 28(3) and 29(2) and 29(3) apply.
	The amendment to Clause 66 will have the effect that the local board will not have to inform the victims of offences where the offender has been convicted or dealt with by a court martial or courts-martial appeals court.
	I ought to record my gratitude to noble Lords who highlighted in Committee the defect in the present Clause 66(2) which caused us to re-visit the drafting in this area. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 99:
	Page 45, line 31, after ("convicted") insert ("by a court in England or Wales").
	Page 46, line 6, leave out ("in England and Wales").
	Page 46, line 6, after ("guilty") insert ("by a court in England or Wales").
	Page 46, line 16, leave out from ("if") to ("satisfied") in line 17 and insert ("the first condition set out in section 28(2) or 29(2) or the second condition set out in section 28(3) or 29(3) is").
	Page 46, line 17, at end insert--
	("( ) In this section "court" does not include a court-martial or the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 66 [Duties of local boards in connection with victims of certain offences]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 46, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 20 and insert ("a court--
	(a) convicts an offender of a sexual or violent offence, and
	(b) imposes a relevant sentence").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 101 and 102:
	Page 46, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
	Page 47, line 13, leave out subsection (8).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 47, line 17, at end insert--
	(""court" does not include a court-martial or the Courts-Martial Appeal Court,").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 69 [Failure to secure regular attendance at school: increase in penalty]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Leave out Clause 69.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the amendment would attempt to leave out Clause 69. That is the clause that deals with parents whose children do not regularly attend school. It raises the fine to which they may be subject from £1,000 to £2,500.
	As the Minister pointed out in Committee, my objection is to the principle behind the clause. The principle of vicarious guilt is being applied to the parent. Since I was not in a position to come in at the ground floor, I am at least, I hope, entitled to say that planning permission should not be given to build another storey on this house, because I believe that it should not have been here in the first place.
	This clause altogether over-rates the power that some parents have over teenage children. Queen Elizabeth I once heard a protest from the Spanish ambassador about the activities of Sir Francis Drake, and replied:
	"The gentleman careth not if I should disavow him".
	The language is different, but I believe that the reaction of many parents who are asked to control the activities of their teenage children boils down to very much the same thing.
	The number of sanctions available to the parent of a teenager is strictly limited. Sometimes it can be done simply because the child wants approval, but that is not always the case. My father once remarked, "Most children desire approval. If they did not, all discipline would be impossible". However, the minority who are the exceptions are very often the ones with whom we are dealing in this situation.
	I believe that the clause also misunderstands the likely reaction of parents who may be very shamed and distressed by the imposition of this procedure. I understand that the object is not actually to levy the fine but to secure an attendance at court. But very often the reaction of parents whose children bring them into disgrace is to want to dissociate themselves from them quite forcefully; in other words, "It's nothing to do with me". That reaction means that they will not want to appear in court. In fact, the more shamed and disgraced they feel, the more those parents will want to be nowhere where their child's record is being examined.
	The ultimate sanction available to parents of teenagers is, I regret to say, expelling them from home. If noble Lords were to read the report of the Children's Society, Still Running, they would find that a very high proportion of children--indeed, I believe it is 19 per cent--who run away from home are expelled by their parents. I do not want that proportion to increase. Very often, those children have to take refuge in what the Children's Society describes as "risky survival strategies"--for example, selling sex or drugs, stealing or begging. None of the latter is an activity that any of us from any quarter of the House would wish to see more of than we do at present. In so far as this clause has an effect, that is the likely effect that it will have.
	In Committee, the Minister faced me with evidence to which I listened with some care. He cited cases where parents are actually in collusion with the child who does not attend school because they are involving the child in some money-making activity, or taking him away on holiday when he ought to be in school. I am not defending such actions. Indeed, in such cases, the clause might possibly have a useful effect because it would hold the parent responsible for something that the parent had actually done. That seems to me to be proper.
	I cannot move an amendment on Third Reading for the deletion of a clause. However, I hope that the Minister wants to come out of this Bill with some reasonably amicable compromises; indeed, I trust that he may. We do not always have to have a confrontation on everything: but it takes two to compromise. I have in mind what we may do hereafter. Before we return to the matter on Third Reading, I wonder whether the Minister will consider an amendment to this clause suggesting that it should apply only where the child has been evading attending school with the "knowledge and consent" of the parent. The active involvement of the parents in approving this seems to me to be an essential constituent of their deserving any punishment; and, indeed, of it being possible practically to impose it.
	I do not know whether that compromise will be acceptable to the Minister. However, I am prepared to discuss it in detail, make adaptations and see what we can do. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my name has been attached to this amendment. I have a few questions for the Minister. It would be useful to know the extent to which the schemes to reduce truancy in schools that have been put in place at very great cost have been successful. Right across the country local authority schools have received money to help them produce strategies for reducing the number of young people who are truanting from school. It would be helpful to be given that information.
	In May this year I tabled a Question for Written Answer which was answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I asked,
	"How many parents have been found guilty and fined in connection with the offence of non-attendance at school; and what is the average fine for parents found guilty in connection with the offence of non-attendance at school; and how many parents have received the maximum fine of £2,500 in connection with the offence of non-attendance at school?".--[Official Report, 18/5/00; cols. WA 37-38.]
	To all three Questions the answer was that the department did not know and that it would be disproportionately costly to find out the information. If that is the case, what is the basis for doubling the fine? What is the argument for saying that doubling the fine will have an effect?
	I re-tabled the Question in a different form in October. I received a reply on Monday 30th October. In that Answer, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, argued that it was disproportionately expensive to find out the information. However, the noble Baroness added:
	"Most importantly, our proposal"
	--that is, doubling the level of the fine--
	"will force parents prosecuted for school attendance offences to turn up in court to face the consequences of their actions, or risk arrest. It will also give magistrates greater flexibility when deciding on the fine level to impose when parents are found guilty".--[Official Report, 30/10/00; col. WA 72.]
	I find that extraordinary. I understand that 80 per cent of parents do not turn up in court now. I have done a little detective work of my own in a number of courts with which I am familiar. The levels of fine are derisory. They range from £10 to £20 and up to £50. Evidence shows that some parents are fined an average of £50 to £100. The Government are talking of doubling the limit of the fine but the courts are nowhere near using the limit of the fine at the moment. What is the rationale for the measure? If 80 per cent of parents do not turn up in court when a lower maximum fine may be imposed, what makes the noble Lord believe that they will turn up if it is doubled?
	How much more flexibility will such a measure give the courts if they are not using the flexibility available to them at present to levy greater fines on parents who commit offences in relation to non-attendance at school? How will the measure that is proposed increase flexibility in this regard? The department does not know how many parents are found guilty or appear in court. It would be helpful to hear the Minister's views on that matter.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we all have an interest--this is common to Members on all sides of the House--in seeing our young people in school. Every day spent out of school constitutes another lost opportunity for young people. The most vulnerable children are the ones who are most at risk of losing out on education. That blights their lives for ever. Anything that can be done to reduce the incidence of truancy would have my support. However, it must be something practical that will work. I believe that the Department for Education recently announced giving the police powers to conduct a sweep of streets and shopping areas during school hours to take truant children back to school. I support that practical measure. I am sure that the police would carry it out in a sensitive manner. The important matter is to find a way of getting truanting children back in school.
	I refer to another proposal that I would have supported when I was a Minister if we in the department had not been thwarted by confidentiality rules. Children who spend time out of school will often say that they have been to the dentist or to the doctor or they have been doing this, that or the other. It was not possible for the police to check with the dentist or doctor to verify the excuse. I was sad about that as I thought that it would have been breaching confidentiality for good reason if a dentist or a doctor were allowed to say that the reason he was giving the information was to ensure that the children in question did not get away with false excuses for being out of school illicitly. I hope that across Whitehall ways can be found to allow for that kind of breach of confidentiality.
	At the end of the day, I believe that it is in the interests of the child to be back at school. I am not against reducing truancy. I am not against practical suggestions. But simply doubling the fine will do nothing for these parents. We have already talked about instances where the parent is not culpable. In good faith, the parent ensures that the children have their breakfast and are sent to school. I gave the example of a case known to me where for three months the child had been sent off to school. The school rang to ask whether the child had left the school or the family had left the area. The parent was completely unaware that the child had not attended school but was playing with friends somewhere else in town. How culpable is a parent in that situation? As parents we have a responsibility to ensure that our children attend school. Where does the culpability lie when the parent sees the child through the school gate, the child registers for school, and then disappears?
	Finally, there is confusion about where those cases are dealt with. The adults appear in the adult court; the children appear in the juvenile court. The same issue is discussed. They are treated very differently in the courts. It is unsatisfactory. I believe that the clause should not be in the Bill. I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this sounds like dangerous liberalism with perhaps Conservatives going soft on the issue of truancy.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not going soft on truancy. I believe that I gave sufficient examples to underline that we should do all that we can to get children back into school. It is for the Minister to defend why this policy will be effective.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am more than happy to make that case and put that argument. However, when we come up with measures which are quite hard nosed and tough, Members from the party opposite do not seem to want to deal with that toughness.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I remind the Minister, first, that there are two parties opposite; and, secondly, that the point at issue is whether these measures are effective. I should be grateful if the Minister will address that point.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am well aware that there are two parties opposite; and, yes, I intend to deal with whether these measures will be effective.
	I am acutely aware that our children have only one chance at education. I have three children at school. As a parent I, too, have to account for their behaviour and attitude, and what my children do in and out of school. I see that as an important parental responsibility. Today I have had to send a letter to my son's school to advise the school on why he had a day and a half off school, and why he could not get to school on time yesterday. I believe that that is an important responsibility placed on parents. I take my responsibilities seriously and expect others to do exactly the same
	At least 1 million children at school play truant in any one year. I was interested in the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He seemed to conjure up an image of the average truant: an early teenaged boy, perhaps a child under duress at home, not enjoying happy home circumstances. That may be the case in some instances. But the noble Earl may need to take account of this important statistic: the majority--some 600,000 of those who truant--are of primary school age and their parents know and collude with the fact that they are not at school.
	The Government believe in practical, quite hard-nosed measures. For that reason the truancy sweeps referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, initiated by the Government, and mounted by the police working with local authorities, work very effectively. They have found that two-thirds of those children are out of school without permission and are with their parents when they are found. That is further evidence of collusion.
	As the noble Baroness rightly acknowledged, 80 per cent of parents prosecuted for school attendance offences fail to turn up at court. Clearly they do not believe that it is worth their while or that they should be interested. Most are fined in their absence. The noble Baroness referred to parliamentary Questions that she has asked. I am happy to confirm that those Answers show that the courts fine as little as £1 to £10, with an average fine of £50 to £100. Only a small number of fines reach the maximum level of £1,000.
	The background information suggests that there are 60 prosecutions a year using the relevant provision in education legislation, which has been in place for 50 years or more. There may not be a large number of cases that make their way to court, but there is an important issue at stake. If we as a society disapprove strongly of people playing truant, we should say so. This is a way of making a powerful public statement of our disapproval of truancy. Truancy leads to young people getting into trouble and can lead to terrible offences. That is why the Government have taken the issue so seriously. Everyone says that they want to do something about truancy, but thus far nobody has been prepared to do it. We believe that we should. If the measure sends a powerful message to society, we shall have achieved our aim.
	On 19th October, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary announced a series of measures to tackle unauthorised absence from school. Next year, £43 million will be made available to schools and local education authorities to use on a range of initiatives to tackle truancy and improve discipline in schools. The two are undoubtedly linked.
	The Secretary of State has called for a renewed effort to tackle truancy through a co-ordinated programme of truancy sweeps in every local authority. Funding will be provided for more learning mentors in Excellence in Cities areas where extra provision can be made to help individual children at risk of not attending or not succeeding at school. We intend to consult carefully with schools that have above average truancy levels. The new Connexions service will provide further advice and guidance to all 13 to 19-year-olds. All young people who want support will have access to a personal adviser.
	The noble Baroness made great play of the level of fines. I suppose that the nub of her argument was that if the fines are generally low--perhaps £10 or £50 to £100--what is the point of raising the maximum fine to £2,500 or of making the offence potentially imprisonable? The point is that a warrant can then be issued so that the parents can be brought to court. The magistrates can then see the parents and make clear not just their displeasure at the parents' inability to get to grips with the issue or to share responsibility--

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, cannot a person who defaults on a fine be brought back to court already?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is the case, but it is much better that the parent should have a responsibility to be present in the first instance when a case is brought before the court. I am sure that the noble Baroness agrees that it cannot be right that parents do not show up at court in 80 per cent of cases. Our strategy will mean that there is every possibility that parents will be brought before the court and the magistrates will be able to discuss in the court why they are failing to ensure that their children turn up at school. It will then be at the discretion of the magistrate to reach a decision on the best course of action and assess whether a parenting order or a community sentence is more appropriate. However, without the appearance of the parent and without proper parental explanation, the magistrates are not in a position to do that. We believe that for that reason many magistrates take the understandably easier option of imposing a low level of fine. They know that if they impose a heavier fine or penalty it will have little effect and, in many instances, may go unpaid--one of the banes of a magistrate's life.
	I have not been at all convinced by the noble Baroness's arguments for taking no further action on truants. I understand the arguments and am perfectly prepared to be sympathetic to the point made by the noble Earl with regard to seeing whether we can improve the quality of our approach and whether we can explore the issue of knowledge and consent. That is clearly important and I am quite prepared to do that. However, we believe that our position on this matter is right. We cannot accept the amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We believe that our course of action is appropriate. It offers a way in which we can not only express our displeasure at parental collusion to truancy but also take effective action.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for his concluding words about being prepared to explore the issues of knowledge and consent. I hope that that may provide a way forward. I must confess that I am not quite so happy with some of the other parts of his reply. He said that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was proposing to do nothing about truancy. However, in her speech I listened with interest to a considerable number of proposals for possible action on truancy. On the spur of the moment, I am not certain how many of them I support. However, at the very least I believe that they prove that that charge was unjustified.
	We cannot deal with this matter simply by suggesting that those who are against the clause are in favour of truancy. When any measure is put before this House we are entitled to ask two questions about it. First, is it effective, and, secondly, does it punish the guilty and not the innocent? Only if those two questions can be answered in the affirmative is the proposed measure justifiable. I am not certain that either question can be answered in that way in relation to this clause. If that cannot be established, the question as to whether we are for or against truancy does not arise.
	Incidentally, since the Minister raised the question, when I paid my newspaper bill last Saturday I talked to the newsagent's daughter, who is a teacher. She told me that she intends to return to Nigeria to continue her teaching career because she says that there the children value what they are getting when they are taught. She says that here they simply say, "Miss, what is the point? Why do I have to do all this?" As does the Minister, I recognise that as a very serious problem. However, I believe that the solutions stretch rather wider than any envisaged in this Bill. Rather more of them are educational and rather more are connected with the pattern of subsequent employment than the Minister's defence of this clause would suggest.
	I take his point about primary school children. However, he must admit--and, if he does not, his noble friend Lord Warner will tell him because such people come his way--that a number of teenagers of the type that I envisaged do truant from school. In those cases the parent may be quite unable to deal with the truancy. I believe that the Minister should be concerned if he has caught a large number of innocent or helpless parents in his net together with the guilty. It is not an awfully desirable system of law enforcement and we should avoid it.
	I turn to the effect of the measure. I believe that I am correct in saying that, as it stands, the measure will lead to a considerable increase in teenage homelessness. The homeless do not normally have a particularly good record of school attendance. In that way the measure could be counter-productive.
	The point the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made about the funds is important. Courts have to live in the real world in a way that Whitehall does not. Whitehall is shut away from the public. It does not have to contest elections. Courts face members of the public every day. Their judgment of what can realistically be expected and what funds can be levied may be the better judgment of the two. My conclusion from the evidence of the noble Baroness is to wonder in how many cases the money envisaged in these funds is actually to be had.
	The point the noble Baroness made about knowledge is also of considerable importance. If a child goes out of the house and there is no complaint heard from the school any parent is entitled to assume that the child is in school. I cannot see any way of rebutting that. Meanwhile if there is any chance of informal protest I should welcome it. Without that I would put down a revised amendment of the sort that could properly be discussed at Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 105:
	Page 75, line 7, leave out from ("board") to end of line 8.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 105 and speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 106 to 115. These amendments are all consequential on the substantive provisions of the Bill. I shall give a brief explanation of why each is necessary. Amendments Nos. 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 are all consequential on the reorganisation of the Probation Service and in particular on a replacement of probation committees by local boards. They insert definition of "local board" into those existing statutes where references will be made--as a result of further consequential amendments--under this Bill to "officers of a local board". Without these amendments, references to "officers of local boards" in these statutes would be meaningless.
	Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 are minor drafting amendments to consequential amendments already in Schedule 7 to the Bill that are consequential on the abolition of detention in a young offender institution.
	Amendment No. 105 is a minor drafting amendment to a consequential amendment already in Schedule 7 to the Bill that is consequential on the reorganisation of the Probation Service and, in particular, to the change in name of "probation officer" to "officer of a local board". I beg to move Amendment No. 105.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 106 to 115:
	Page 75, line 10, at end insert--
	(" . In section 70(1) (general interpretation), at the appropriate place there is inserted--
	""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
	Page 82, line 9, at end insert--
	(" . In section 6(1) (general interpretation), at the appropriate place there is inserted--
	""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
	Page 82, line 12, leave out second ("prison") and insert ("or prison").
	Page 82, line 28, leave out (""sentence of").
	Page 82, line 37, at end insert--
	(" . In section 99(1) (general interpretation), at the appropriate place there is inserted--
	""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
	Page 83, line 14, at end insert--
	(" . The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 is amended as follows.").
	Page 83, line 15, leave out ("of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993").
	Page 83, line 17, at end insert--
	(" . In section 27(1) (interpretation of Part I), at the appropriate place there is inserted--
	""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
	Page 87, line 1, at end insert--
	(" . In section 54(1) (general interpretation), at the appropriate place there is inserted--
	""local board" means a local board established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;".").
	Page 87, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert (", in each of paragraphs 8(5) and 11(6), in the table, for "Probation officer" there is substituted "Officer of a local board"").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 8 [Repeals]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 116:
	Page 106, line 32, column 3, after ("3,") insert ("paragraph 9(2),").

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 116 which I move and Amendment No. 117 to which I speak are minor drafting amendments to Schedule 8, the schedule of repeals. I do not need to go into further explanation unless noble Lords require me to do so. I beg to move Amendment No. 116.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 107, line 7, at end insert--
	
		
			 ("2000 c. Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. In section 30(1), paragraph (b) of the definition of "qualifying sentence". In section 66(9), paragraph (b) of the definition of "relevant sentence".") 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 77 [Commencement]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 118:
	Page 50, line 33, at end insert ("and different areas").

Lord Bach: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 118 and speak to Amendment No. 120. These two amendments deal with the commencement of the provisions of the Bill. Amendment 118 enables the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State to appoint different days for the commencement for the provisions of the Bill for different areas.
	As the Bill stands, different days may be appointed for commencement only for different purposes. Amendment No. 120 has the effect of removing paragraph 137 of Schedule 7 to the Bill from the list of provisions that will come into force on Royal Assent. I beg to move Amendment No. 118.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 119:
	Page 50, line 33, at end insert--
	("( ) No day may be appointed for the commencement of sections 40 to 42 until the results of the review of the sentencing framework of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 can be taken into account.").

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall be brief. It is our understanding that the review of the sentencing framework of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 will encompass community orders. It would be confusing and unhelpful to both the courts and the Probation Service if there were to be more than one change to either the nature or name of such orders. For that reason, we propose delaying the implementation of the name changes under this Bill until that review has been completed and has made known its recommendations so that they may be taken into account by this House. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her ingenuity in bringing back the famous Clauses 40, 41 and 42 in this particular form towards the very end of our proceedings.
	I am afraid that I cannot agree with her. The sentencing review must be distinguished from what we seek to do in the Bill. The sentencing review has been asked to look at the sentencing framework, which includes looking at the rationale for sentencing and at creating different types of sentences. That is a relatively long-term process.
	The reason for renaming the orders is to deal with what we are sure is the public's current lack of understanding of what the existing community penalties mean. That does not pre-empt any of the issues being considered by the review. We believe that it is right to change the names as soon as is convenient in order that the public will get a better sense of what we want the existing orders to be.
	One consequence of agreeing to the noble Baroness's amendment would be that the dreadfully named "combination order" might last a lot longer. No one knows what combination orders are, apart from the professionals who deal with them. The sooner that is changed, the better.
	As I said, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her ingenuity, but we shall not fall for her suggestion. I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I suppose that at this hour of the night, it is better to be called ingenious than incoherent. The noble Lord clearly understood where I was coming from and where I hoped to go. In view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall perhaps return to it at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 50, line 40, after ("136") insert (", 138").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 78 [Extent]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 121 and 122:
	Page 51, line 13, at end insert--
	("( ) this Chapter,").
	Page 51, line 22, at end insert--
	("( ) For the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998, any provision of section 63 and Schedule 5 and, so far as relating to those provisions and extending to Scotland, any provision of this Chapter is to be taken to be a pre-commencement enactment within the meaning of that Act.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at eight minutes past midnight.